IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1707 of 2010()
1. PRABHAKARAN,AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :08/06/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J
-----------------------
B.A No.1707 OF 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of June 2010
ORDER
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 321, 323, 324 and
326 IPC. According to prosecution, on 27/08/2010 at about 10:30
P.M petitioner attacked de facto complainant who is his brother-in-
law with a chopper and caused grievous hurt to him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner
also sustained injuries and the incident happened in the house of the
petitioner. Petitioner is not involved in any other crime. The matter
is settled between the parties. Hence, anticipatory bail may be
granted.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is the second
application for anticipatory bail. As per Annexure A2 order, the
earlier application was dismissed stating that petitioner is not
entitled to the relief. Recovery of weapon is not so far effected.
5. On hearing both sides and on going through Annexure
A2 order, I find that the earlier application for anticipatory bail by the
petitioner was dismissed about six months back on 28/01/2010. The
incident happened on 27/08/2009 about ten months back.
Investigation is in a stand still since petitioner has not surrendered
B.A No.1707 OF 2010 2
and recovery of weapons is not effected. In Annexure A2 order,
this court has already observed that if anticipatory bail is granted
to petitioner it would adversely affect the proper investigation of
this case and that custodial interrogation of petitioner may be
required. It was also observed that petitioner is not entitled to
discretionary relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of
offence and the allegations made against the petitioner, i do not
find any reason to come to a different finding. Though petitioner
submitted that the matter is settled, there is nothig before this
court to support the same. Though petitioner would contend that
the injury sustained by de facto complainant is minor, learned
Public Prosecutor has submitted that the offence involved is under
Section 326 IPC and injuries are also serious. Taking into account
various facts, the following order is passed:
(1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating
Officer forthwith and co-operate with investigation.
(2) No further application for anticipatory bail by
petitioner shall be entertained by this court.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA
JUDGE
vdv