IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5223 of 2009 CRIME NO.419 OF 2009 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION, ALLEPPEY PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ MOHANAN, THANDATHU VEEDU, KARIMULAKKAL, CHUNAKKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENTS: STATE AND THE COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANADU POLICE STATION, NOORANADU. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 5223 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th 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.419 of 2009 of Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 447, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner and the de facto complainant are brothers. The prosecution case is that on 21.8.2009 at 8.30 PM, the de facto complainant and his son were attacked by the younger brothers of the de facto complainant and the son of one of the brothers of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant and his son sustained stab injuries. When the Bail Application came up for hearing, an attempt was made to settle the disputes between the brothers before the Adalath. However, the matter could not be settled between the parties as the de facto complainant failed to appear. B.A. NO. 5223 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the injury sustained by the defacto complainant and other circumstances, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. 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 ahz/