IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1415 of 2010()
1. AJEESH, PLAVUNILKUNNATHIL, ALA P.O.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.SASITH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :17/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. Nos. 1415 & 1467 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
These are applications for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner in Bail
Application No. 1415/2010 is accused No.1, while the petitioner
in Bail application No. 1467/2010 is accused No.6 .
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The date of occurrence was on 02.09.2009. The
prosecution case is that the accused persons formed themselves
into an unlawful assembly and attacked the de facto complainant
with an iron rod. The de facto complainant sustained fracture of
his left hand.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The injury resulting in the fracture is attributable to the
attack made by accused No.1, with an iron rod. The allegation
B.A. Nos. 1415 & 1467 of 2010 2
against accused No.6 is that he assaulted the de facto
complainant with hand. The grievous hurt caused to the de facto
complainant is not attributable to any overt act done by accused
No.6.
5. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of
the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to accused No.6.
However, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to accused
No.1(petitioner in B.A. No.1415/2010). The allegation is that he
had caused grievous hurt to the de facto complainant using an
iron rod. The de facto complainant sustained fracture. In the
facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the first accused
(petitioner in B.A. No. 1415/2010) is not entitled to the
discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Bail Application No. 1415/2010 is therefore, liable to
be dismissed.
Accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of
the arrest of the petitioner (accused No.6- Pradeep Kumar), the
officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on
his executing bond for Rs. 15,000/- with two solvent sureties for
the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned,
B.A. Nos. 1415 & 1467 of 2010 3
subject to the following conditions:
A) The petitioner in B.A.No. 1467 of 2010(accused
No.6-Pradeep Kumar) shall report before the
investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M.
on every Monday for two months.
B) The petitioner in B.A.No. 1467 of 2010 (accused
No.6-Pradeep Kumar) shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as and
when required;
C) The petitioner in B.A.No. 1467 of 2010 (accused
No.6-Pradeep Kumar) shall not try to influence
the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence.
D) The petitioner in B.A.No. 1467 of 2010(accused
No.6-Pradeep Kumar) shall not commit any
offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity
while on bail.
E) In case of breach of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be
cancelled.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application No.
1467/2010 is allowed in the manner indicated above and Bail
Application No. 1415/2010 is dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
ln