IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6986 of 2011 CRIME NO.288 OF 2011 OF CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: --------------------------------------- JINESH, S/O.RAMESHAN, AGED 21 YEARS, CARPENTER BY OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT J.J.NIVAS, P.O.CHVVA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SATHEESH RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. (CRIME NO.288/2011 OF CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 6986 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.288 of 2011 of City Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 448, 341, 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 10.7.2011, the accused persons forcibly entered into the property in the possession of the de facto complainant and attacked him. The allegation is that the first accused attacked the de facto complainant with a sword, which resulted in the fracture of both the bones of the left leg of the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that anticipatory bail was granted to the second accused as per the order in B.A.No.6333 of 2011. In the order in B.A.No.6333 of 2011, BAIL APPL. NO. 6986 OF 2011 :: 2 :: it is specifically stated that the fracture was caused due to the attack made by the first accused with a sword and that the overt acts alleged against the second accused do not relate to the grievous hurt caused to the de facto complainant. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/