IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6413 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ CRIME NO.457/2008 OF ERUMAPPETTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- BADHUSHA, AGED 33 YEARS,S/O. KUNJIMON, KIZHAKKITHIL HOUSE, VELIYANKODE AMSOM, GRAMAM DESOM, VELIYANKODE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6413 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 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.1 in Crime No.457/2008 of Erumappetty Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 326, 341, 427 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 24/11/2008 at 8.30 P.M., the 4th accused directed the de facto complainant to come to a particular spot to facilitate him to return the gold ornaments belonging to the de facto complainant's sister. The de facto complainant went to the spot. He was taken in a car by accused No. 4 and her daughter. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 came on a motor bike, intercepted the car, pulled down the de facto complainant and attacked him with sword, which resulted in serious injuries. B.A. No. 6413/ 2009 2 4. The de facto complainant was the driver of the vehicle owned by the 4th accused. The daughter of the 4th accused eloped with the de facto complainant. Therefore, the accused persons had enmity towards the de facto complainant. 5. The allegations levelled against the accused persons are serious in nature. The de facto complainant had sustained grievous injuries. The investigation is in progress. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm