IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 832 of 2010() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.6087/2009 Dated 12/01/2010 CRIME NO.263/2009 OF MANARCAD POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. .................... PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- NINAN K.JACOB,S/O.K.T.CHACKO, AGED 35 YEARS,KULATHUNKAL HOUSE, AREEPARAMBA.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNACADU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 832 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 O R D E R The first accused and the petitioner had filed B.A. No.6087 of 2009 before this Court for anticipatory bail. That application was dismissed as per the order dated 12/1/2010. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 12/1/2010 is extracted below: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.269/2009 of Mannarcadu Police Station, Kottayam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The first petitioner is the paternal uncle of the de facto complainant. The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. On 22/9/2009, B.A. No. 832/ 2010 2 accused No. 2 abused the de facto complainant's brother. A petition was filed by him before the police in respect of that incident. To take revenge for reporting the matter to the police, on 23/9/2009, while the de facto complainant and his two brothers were proceeding on a motor bike, the jeep driven by the first accused (in which accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also present) was driven towards the bike and hit against it. The de facto complainant and his brothers were thrown out. The de facto complainant sustained grievous injuries. Both bones of his leg sustained fracture. The brothers of the de facto complainant also sustained injuries. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. If anticipatory bail is granted to the B.A. No. 832/ 2010 3 petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the other accused were arrested in the case and that it is a change of circumstance. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to accept that contention raised by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a handicapped person. He had sustained an accident while he was employed in Gulf. He had undergone a surgery. Annexures II and III are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention. Annexures II and II show that the petitioner sustained the injury while working in Gulf in October, 2006. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disability caused to the petitioner continued B.A. No. 832/ 2010 4 even after the surgery. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted, on instructions, that after the accident, the petitioner had recovered and at present he is not affected by any disability. 5. I do not find any ground to entertain the second application. There is no change of circumstances warranting the filing of second application for anticipatory bail. The illness or disability of the petitioner, if any, shall be taken note of at the time of the arrest of the petitioner and thereafter. For that purpose, I do not think it is necessary to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the disability, if any, of the petitioner shall be taken note of by the investigating officer and also by the court at the appropriate stage. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm