IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7112 of 2009() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 824/2009 OF FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ......................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- SHIBU.M, S/O. MOHANAN, KOLLANDVVILAKKATHU VEEDU, KALADY, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S. BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7112 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd 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. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.824/2009 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 18.09.2009 at 6.30 P.M., about 30 persons approached the de facto complainant near his house. They surrounded him. The second accused punched him on his nose with a hitting block. The second accused shouted to kill the de facto complainant. The other accused had beaten and kicked the de facto complainant. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 attacked the de facto complainant with swords and he sustained injuries. On hearing the hue and cry, the neighbours came to the place and tried to save the de facto complainant. At that time, two of them were also attacked by the accused and those persons sustained injuries. The de facto complainant and others were admitted in the hospital. All of them had sustained serious B.A. No. 7112 of 2009 2 injuries. It is alleged that the accused persons used to take drugs, assembling in a property near the house of the de facto complainant. The police party took hold of the accused persons. The accused persons were under the impression that the de facto complainant had given the information to the police. On that ground, he was attacked by the accused. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is having 45% physical disability and it cannot be believed that he could commit an offence like this. It is also pointed that the prosecution case that the petitioner also ran away while others came to the spot, is hard to believe. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant and others, I am of the view that this is not 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 ln