IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9069 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.649/2011 Dated 23/08/2011 .................... CRIME NO.272/2011 OF KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT APPLICANTS(S): /ACCUSED NO.1 ---------------------------------------------- ANOOP @ KUTTAI, S/O.NARAYANAN, PULIYANIPUZHA HOUSE, OTTALLUR.P.O., KARIMKUNNAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.K. RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DS K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.9069 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.272 of 2011 of Koothattukulam Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 447, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 308 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner and accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 filed B.A.No.6649 of 2011 for anticipatory bail, which was disposed of as per Annexure-A order dated 23rd August, 2011. As per Annexure-A order, the prayer for anticipatory bail made by the petitioner was rejected. However, anticipatory bail was granted to the other petitioners. B.A.No. 9069 OF 2011 2 4. While disposing of B.A.No.6649 of 2011, it was held thus: “3. The prosecution case is that on 3.8.2011 at 7.15 P.M, the accused persons entered into the compound of the defacto complainant and attacked him and others with dangerous weapons. The allegation is that accused No.1 attacked the injured with a knife resulting in serious injuries to him. The injuries attributable to the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code were inflicted by accused No.1. Though the other accused are also part of the incident, on a consideration of the allegations made against them, it is prima facie seen that the overt acts alleged against them are not directly attributable to the injury which attracted the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to accused No.1(second petitioner). If anticipatory bail is granted to the second petitioner (accused No.1), it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation of the second petitioner (accused No.1) may be required in the case. The weapon of offence has also to be recovered.” 4. I do not find any ground to allow this Bail Application. The prayer made by the petitioner for anticipatory bail was rejected by a detailed order. There is no change of circumstances warranting reconsideration of the issue. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms