IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 780 of 2010()
1. NISHANTH, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 27
... Petitioner
2. ANEESH, S/O.KARATHUTTAN,
3. ABHILASH, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,
4. JIJU, S/O.MANOHARAN, AGED 21 YEARS,
5. LANISH, S/O.SHANKARAN, AGED 25 YEARS,
6. RATHEESH, S/O.BALAN, AGED 27 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... Respondent
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.HARISH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :22/02/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.780 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are
accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7 in Crime No.118 of 2010 of Hosdurg
Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 427, 506, 308 and 326 read
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is the following: On 28.1.2010,
at about 11.45 P.M., the accused persons, seven in number,
formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and criminally
trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, assaulted
him and his friends. The accused persons also attacked the
mother and sister of the de facto complainant and destroyed the
articles in the house. Brijesh, a friend of the de facto
complainant, was admitted in Unity Hospital, Mangalore for the
period from 29.1.2010 to 8.2.2010. He had sustained grievous
injuries.
BA No.780/2010 2
4. The third accused was arrested on 30.1.2010 and he
was remanded to judicial custody. He was granted bail as per
the order dated 22nd February, 2010 in Bail Application No.928
of 2010. The petitioners apprehend arrest and therefore, they
have filed this application for anticipatory bail.
5. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the
case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations
levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that the
petitioners are entitled to the discretionary relief under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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
csl