IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 83 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.560/2009 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR. ................. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 --------------------------------------------- 1. V.K. LIJEESH, S/O. CHANDRIKA, AGED 20 YEARS, MAVULLAMMATTA HOUSE, KUZHIKKAL, KAYANI P.O. 2. N. SATHEESHAN, S/O. BALAN, AGED 25 YEARS, THADATHIL VALAPPIL HOUSE, KUZHIKKAL, KAYANI P.O. BY ADV. MR.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 83 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.560/2009 of Mattannur Police Station, Kannur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 326 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: On 13/12/2009, the de facto complainant had taken on his bike, his friend, Jamsheer, to the latter's residence. While, going to the house of Jamsheer, the accused persons intercepted the bike and asked where the de facto complainant was going. He stated that he was going to the house of Jamsheer. After dropping Jamsheer at his residence, while the de facto complainant was coming back, he was attacked by the accused with an iron rod. The bike belonging to the de facto complainant was destroyed, causing damage to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The injuries noted on the B.A. No. 83 / 2010 2 body of the de facto complainant are the following: 1. L.W. 2cmsx1 cm on upper right leg. 2. Compound fracture of Rt. Tibia. 3. Blunt injury urethra-Bleeding. 4. The de facto complaint was admitted in the hospital on 14/12/2009 and he was discharged from the hospital only on 19/12/2009. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm