IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6087 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.269/2009 OF MANNARCADU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. K.T.CHACKO, AGED 70 YEARS KULATHUNKAL HOUSE, AREEPARAMPU PO,KOTTAYAM. 2. NINAN K.JACOB, S/O. K.T.CHACKO, KULATHUNKAL HOUSE, AREEPARAMPU PO,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.269 OF 2009 OF MANNARCADU POLICE STATION) SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6087 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 O R D E R 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, 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 B.A. No. 6087 /2009 2 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 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. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm