High Court Kerala High Court

Anil vs State Of Kerala on 1 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Anil vs State Of Kerala on 1 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 874 of 2010()


1. ANIL, S/O.KUTTAN, AGED 39 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :01/03/2010

 O R D E R
                       K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                    ---------------------------
                     B.A. No. 874 of 2010
                ------------------------------------
               Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010

                            O R D E R

This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime

No.134/2010 of Thiruvalla Police Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 341, 324, 326, 307 and 120 B read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: On

27/1/2010, the victim, Vishak, while riding on a motor bike, was

intercepted by the accused persons and he was attacked by them

with sword, chopper and sword sticks. It is alleged that the

weapons of offence were used straight on the head of the victim.

Since the victim warded off the attack by his hands, he sustained

serious injuries on both of his hands. He also sustained mandible

fracture. He was treated in the Pushpagiri Medical College

Hospital, Thiruvalla and later he was referred to the Medical

College Hospital, Kottayam. The doctor, who treated Vishak, had

given opinion that the injuries were very serious in nature. I have

B.A. No. 874/2010
2

perused the Case Diary, wound certificates and the diagrams

showing the wounds sustained by Vishak. It is submitted by the

learned Public Prosecutor that the Medical Officer of the Medical

College Hospital, Kottayam has stated that due to the injuries

sustained by Vishak, his both hands were paralysed and that

there is no chance of recovery.

4. The motive for the attack is that the accused

suspected that Vishak was responsible for informing the police

about the activities of the accused in unlawful mining and

removal of sand. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that

the accused persons constitute a sand mafia in the locality. The

first accused is a notorious criminal, submits the learned Public

Prosecutor.

5. The petitioner was arrested on 30/1/2010 and he was

remanded to judicial custody. The investigation is not over. If the

petitioner is released on bail at this stage, as rightly pointed out

by the learned Public prosecutor, it would adversely affect the

proper investigation of the case. It is also likely that the

petitioner may indulge in similar criminal activities and intimidate

B.A. No. 874/2010
3

and influence the witnesses.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner was admitted in a Private Mental Hospital, from

where he was arrested. The counsel points out that the petitioner

is suffering from mental illness.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor assured that if the

petitioner shows symptom of any illness, he would be adequately

treated at the appropriate hospital. This submission is recorded.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is

dismissed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm