IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1415 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 682/2009 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION .................................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------- AJEESH, PLAVUNILKUNNATHIL, ALA P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010 ALONG WITH BA NO. 1467 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos. 1415 & 1467 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 O R D E R These are applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner in Bail Application No. 1415/2010 is accused No.1, while the petitioner in Bail application No. 1467/2010 is accused No.6 . 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 02.09.2009. The prosecution case is that the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the de facto complainant with an iron rod. The de facto complainant sustained fracture of his left hand. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The injury resulting in the fracture is attributable to the attack made by accused No.1, with an iron rod. The allegation B.A. Nos. 1415 & 1467 of 2010 2 against accused No.6 is that he assaulted the de facto complainant with hand. The grievous hurt caused to the de facto complainant is not attributable to any overt act done by accused No.6. 6. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to accused No.6. However, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to accused No.1(petitioner in B.A. No.1415/2010). The allegation is that he had caused grievous hurt to the de facto complainant using an iron rod. The de facto complainant sustained fracture. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the first accused (petitioner in B.A. No. 1415/2010) is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Bail Application No. 1415/2010 is therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner (accused No.6- Pradeep Kumar), the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs. 15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, B.A. Nos. 1415 & 1467 of 2010 3 subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner in B.A.No. 1467 of 2010(accused No.6-Pradeep Kumar) shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on every Monday for two months. B) The petitioner in B.A.No. 1467 of 2010 (accused No.6-Pradeep Kumar) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner in B.A.No. 1467 of 2010 (accused No.6-Pradeep Kumar) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioner in B.A.No. 1467 of 2010(accused No.6-Pradeep Kumar) shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application No. 1467/2010 is allowed in the manner indicated above and Bail Application No. 1415/2010 is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln