IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6836 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.5556/2009 CRIME NO.391/2009 OF PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ SANTHA, W/O.VEERABHADRAN, LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, ATHIKUNADU, SOUTH KONDAZHI, THALPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I.OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNUR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6836 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner and accused Nos. 1 and 2 had filed B.A. No.5556/2009 for anticipatory bail for the relief which is claimed in the present Bail Application filed by the petitioner. B.A.No.5556/2009 was dismissed by the order dated 5/10/2009. The said order reads as follows: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.391 of 2009 of Pazhayannur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I B.A. No. 6836/2009 2 have also perused the case diary. 4. The incident was on 9.8.2009. On that day, the accused persons attacked the mother and sister of the de facto complainant's brother-in-law and they sustained injuries. The de facto complainant's brother-in-law went to the house of the injured persons to take them to the hospital. While the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant was going to get a vehicle to take the injured to the hospital, he was attacked by the accused persons with dangerous weapons. The de facto complainant's brother-in-law sustained serious injuries. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the injuries sustained and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get anticipatory bail. The petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. B.A. No. 6836/2009 3 The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.” There is no ground justifying the filing of a second application for the same relief. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm