IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6836 of 2009()
1. SANTHA, W/O.VEERABHADRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :24/11/2009
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 6836 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009
O R D E R
The petitioner and accused Nos. 1 and 2 had filed
B.A. No.5556/2009 for anticipatory bail for the relief which is
claimed in the present Bail Application filed by the petitioner.
B.A.No.5556/2009 was dismissed by the order dated
5/10/2009. The said order reads as follows:
“This is an application for anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in
Crime No.391 of 2009 of Pazhayannur Police
Station.
2. The offences alleged against the
petitioners are under Sections 341, 324, 326 and
308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I
B.A. No. 6836/2009
2
have also perused the case diary.
4. The incident was on 9.8.2009. On that day,
the accused persons attacked the mother and sister
of the de facto complainant’s brother-in-law and
they sustained injuries. The de facto complainant’s
brother-in-law went to the house of the injured
persons to take them to the hospital. While the
brother-in-law of the de facto complainant was going
to get a vehicle to take the injured to the hospital,
he was attacked by the accused persons with
dangerous weapons. The de facto complainant’s
brother-in-law sustained serious injuries.
5. Taking into account the facts and
circumstances of the case, the injuries sustained
and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I
do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get
anticipatory bail. The petitioners are not entitled to
the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
B.A. No. 6836/2009
3
The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.”
There is no ground justifying the filing of a second
application for the same relief.
The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm