IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5615 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.829/2011 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 ----------------------------- 1. UMESH MOHAN, S/O.MOHANAN, AGED 32 YEARS, "KARUNALAYAM", PUTHENTHURA, NEENDAKARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, 2. JEREESH.R, S/O.RAHIM, AGED 31 YEARS, VATTAVANA KIZHAKETHIL, CHAVARA MURI, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, CHAVARA POLICE STATION, (NOTICE TO WHOM MAY BE SERVED ON THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.5615 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 ORDER It is stated in the Bail Application that the petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.829 of 2011 of Chavara Police Station. They apprehend arrest on an accusation of having committed non-bailable offences. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that originally the case was registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code wherein petitioners 1 and 2 were respectively accused Nos.1 and 2. On investigation, it was revealed that accused Nos.2 and 3 are not involved in the offences therefore they were deleted from the array of accused and Sections of offences were altered as under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegations against accused No.1 is that on 26/06/2011 at 10.30 P.M., accused No.1 and two other persons got out of a car and attacked the de facto complainant. Accused No.1 hit the de facto complainant with Bail Appln.No.5615/2011 : 2 : a hitting block which resulted in the fracture of his nasal bone. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the other two persons who are involved in the case are not identified so far. Since the second petitioner is not an accused in the case, he cannot have any apprehension that he would be arrested. As regards the first accused (first petitioner), the allegations levelled against him are grave in nature. Injuries sustained by the de facto complainant by the attack made by the first accused is also grave in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the first 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 first petitioner/1st accused may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the 1st petitioner/1st accused, 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 skj