IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6415 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRMP.2478/2011 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... (S): ACCUSED NO.2 -------------------------------- MANOJ.P.R, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. RAJAPPAN, EDAPPALLIL, MANARCADU KARA, MANARCADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- B.A.Nos.6415 & 6416 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 ORDER These applications are for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The above applications have been moved by the 2nd and 3rd accused respectively in Crime No.438/11 of Mundakkayam Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code. Both these petitioners had previously moved applications before the Sessions Judge as well, seeking orders of anticipatory bail, but such requests were declined. Copy of the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge has been enclosed . 2. The prosecution case is that the victim and also the accused together consumed liquor in a toddy shop on the night of 19.7.2011, and, consequent to some alteration between them, the victim is stated to have been assaulted by the accused, striking him with a stone on the back of his head and also of kicking and fisting him. When the victim returned to his home, his son, defacto complainant, found that he had bleeding injury, on the back of head. The defacto complainant advised his father B.A.Nos.6415 & 6416 of 2011 2 to go to hospital, but he refused. That night no treatment was provided to him. Next morning his condition was found bad. and he was hospitalized and, later ,the crime was registered. The investigation of the crime is now in progress, after implicating accused for the offences as aforementioned. 3. Learned counsel for the 2nd accused who has filed the Application No. 6415 of 2011 contended that the imputations made against the accused are concocted, devoid of merit and without any bonafides. The crime was registered belatedly, two days after the occurrence, at the instance of the son of the injured is also commented upon. Learned counsel for the 3rd accused submitted that the said accused had no overtact in the assault purported to have been made on the injured. 4. Opposing the applications, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the condition of the victim is still bad and the investigating agency could not question him and record his statement since he continues in a critical condition, still, undergoing treatment at the hospital. The grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioners at this stage will harm the investigation of the crime, is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor . 5. At this stage I am unable to accept the submissions B.A.Nos.6415 & 6416 of 2011 3 made by the learned counsel for the 3rd accused that accused had no overtact in the assault alleged to have been made against the victim. The investigation is in progress and the facts and circumstances presented in the case do not inspire confidence to hold that the petitioners/accused in the crime, having regard to the gravity of the assault made and the injuries suffered by the victim, deserve their release on pre arrest bail. I find that the petitioners in the given facts are not entitled to anticipatory bail. Petitions are dismissed. sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. rkc //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE