IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 276 of 2010 CRIME NO.935 OF 2009 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: --------------------------------------- 1. SIBEESH KUMAR, POOVAPALLIL S.S.VILLA, PERISSERY P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SIJEESH KUMAR, POOVAPPALLIL S.S.VILLA, PERISSERY P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR SRI.J.SUSHANTH RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 276 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.935 of 2009 of Chengannur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323, 324, 341 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 14.12.2009 at about 9.30 PM, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant with an iron rod and the de facto complainant sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam on 15.12.2009 and he was discharged from the hospital only on 26.12.2009. The de facto complainant sustained fracture of left frontal bone, as seen from the discharge certificate. The injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are serious in nature. B.A. NO. 276 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/