IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5564 of 2011 CRIME NO.581 OF 2011 OF GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. SASI, S/O. DAMODARAN, SYAM NIVAS, THYKATTUSSERY, CHERTHALA. 2. SURESH T.S., S/O. SUKUMARAN, THEVARKALA, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM, ETTUMANOOR. 3. MANI E.N., EDATTITHAZHE, VILLONNI P.O., ARPOOKARA. 4. BABU @ RATHNAKARAN K.N., S/O. NARAYANAN, KAROTTUPAOTHANICKAL, MALOM, MANARCADU. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO.5564 OF 2011 E ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 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 to 4 in Crime No.581 of 2011 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323, 326 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 14.6.2011 when the de facto complainant came in his autorickshaw to drop a passenger in the toddy shop in which the petitioners are employed, he was attacked by the petitioners with iron rod and other weapons and caused grievous hurt. The prosecution alleges that the brother of the de facto complainant and his friend had some dispute with accused Nos.1 to 4 and because of the earlier incident, the petitioners attacked the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant was not involved in any dispute between the BAIL APPL. NO.5564 OF 2011 :: 2 :: accused and others. The de facto complainant sustained serious injuries including fracture. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other circumstances, 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. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/