IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7112 of 2009()
1. SHIBU.M, S/O. MOHANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.V.SREEJITH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :02/02/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 7112 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2
in Crime No.824/2009 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
District.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 18.09.2009 at 6.30
P.M., about 30 persons approached the de facto complainant near
his house. They surrounded him. The second accused punched
him on his nose with a hitting block. The second accused shouted
to kill the de facto complainant. The other accused had beaten
and kicked the de facto complainant. Accused Nos. 3 and 4
attacked the de facto complainant with swords and he sustained
injuries. On hearing the hue and cry, the neighbours came to the
place and tried to save the de facto complainant. At that time, two
of them were also attacked by the accused and those persons
sustained injuries. The de facto complainant and others were
admitted in the hospital. All of them had sustained serious
B.A. No. 7112 of 2010 2
injuries. It is alleged that the accused persons used to take drugs,
assembling in a property near the house of the de facto
complainant. The police party took hold of the accused persons.
The accused persons were under the impression that the de facto
complainant had given the information to the police. On that
ground, he was attacked by the accused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is having 45% physical disability and it cannot be
believed that he could commit an offence like this. It is also
pointed that the prosecution case that the petitioner also ran away
while others came to the spot, is hard to believe.
5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injuries
sustained by the de facto complainant and others, I am of the view
that this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to
the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary
relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely
affect the proper investigation of the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
ln