High Court Kerala High Court

Abhilash vs State Of Kerala on 20 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
Abhilash vs State Of Kerala on 20 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2300 of 2010()


1. ABHILASH, CHARUVIL VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. AJMAL,
3. ANEESH, KOCHUVILA VEEDU,
4. AMEER, VALIYAVILA VEEDU,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :20/04/2010

 O R D E R
                   V.K. MOHANAN, J.
            ----------------------------------------
          Bail Application No.2300 of 2010
            -----------------------------------------
        Dated this the 20th day of April, 2010

                         O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioners apprehend arrest connected with

Crime No.215 of 2010 of Anchalummoodu Police Station in

which offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,

323, 324, 452, 427 & 308 r/w 149 of I.P.C. are involved.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on

28.02.2010 at about 3.15 p.m the petitioners attacked the

defacto complainant for the reason that the defacto

complainant had questioned the accused persons regarding

their purchase of cigarette from a super market. As per the

allegation the defacto complainant was inflicted injuries

outside a shop room and there happened some damages to

the shop room.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

B.A.No. 2300 of 2010
-:2:-

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances

involved in the case, especially the gravity of the offences

involved and the allegations, I am not inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioners as the same will adversely

affect the investigation in the above crime which is now in

progress. Considering the grievous nature of the injuries

sustained by the victim and the weapons used to inflict such

injuries, it is not proper for this Court to grant anticipatory

bail in favour of the petitioners at this stage.

In the result, I find no reason to grant anticipatory bail

to the petitioners by exercising the extra ordinary

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and accordingly,

the same is dismissed.

V.K.MOHANAN
JUDGE

rtr/