IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2175 of 2010() ------------------------------------- (IN CRIME NO.108/2010 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION IN ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- SURESH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KARIYIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEETTIL, KUTTENPEROOR MURI, MANNAR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A.SALIM THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.2175 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 323, 324, 427, 308 r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution on 21.2.2010 at about 4.30 pm, petitioner (A2) along with first accused in furtherance of common intention attacked defacto complainant and inflicted injury on him using a brick. Some articles were also damaged and thereby they committed the above offences. 3. According to petitioner, the story stated in the FIR is per se improbable and unbelievable. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that defacto complainant and his friends attacked brother of the accused and inflicted injuries on him and a complaint was filed and a crime was registered against defacto complainant and others, as crime no.109/2010 under sections 323, 324 and 34 IPC. In the present case, non bailable offence u/s.308 was included. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor B.A. No.2175/10 2 submitted that petitioner is involved in 28 other similar crimes. He was detained under the provisions of KAAP Act. Even after release, he committed various other crimes. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made and criminal antecedents of petitioner, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Mere registration of another crime against defacto complainant is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail. No ground is made out from the submissions of petitioner's counsel to invoke Sec.438 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with investigation. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.