High Court Kerala High Court

Pradeep Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Pradeep Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7293 of 2009()


1. PRADEEP CHANDRAN, KANDISSERIL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.HARILAL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :08/01/2010

 O R D E R
                        K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                      ---------------------------
                      B.A. No. 7293 of 2009
                  ------------------------------------
               Dated this the 8th day of January, 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.4

in Crime No.114/2009 of Mavelikkara Police Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(ii), 324, 326 and 308 read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that on 02.03.2009 at about

midnight, the accused persons came near the front gate of the

house of one Kalidasan, the injured, armed with deadly weapons

like iron rods and attacked Kalidasan with those weapons, causing

several injuries including two fractures. Kalidasan was taken to

the hospital. Since he was admitted in the intensive care unit,

his nephew gave the F.I. Statement. The F.I. Statement would

disclose that the incident occurred due to the rivalry of the

accused persons towards the injured, since the injured persuaded

them not to create trouble at the time of a festival on “Kumbha

B.A. No. 7293 of 2009 2

Bharani” day. The injured, namely, Kalidasan was working

abroad and he had come to the native place on leave.

4. I have perused the Case Diary file and the wound

certificate.

5. Taking into account facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature of the offence and the injuries sustained by the

injured, I do not think that this is 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.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

ln