IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1573 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.291/2006 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- RAFI, S/O.IBRAYI, 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT PURAMBOKKIL HOUSE, KADALUR P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.ABDUL JALEEL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- STATE, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1573 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.6 in Crime No.291/2006 of Payyoli Police Station, Kozhikode. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 21/8/2006, an engineering college student was attacked by the accused persons, using swords and other dangerous weapons. The victim sustained serious injuries. In the wound certificate, three incised wounds were noted. The victim was subjected to surgery and his life was saved. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has prominent role in the offence and he was making commands to the other accused for the purpose of commission of the offence. Though the offence was committed on 21/8/2006, the petitioner could not be arrested even after three years. B.A. No. 1573/ 2010 2 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm