IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2167 of 2010()
1. ALI.T.P., S/O.AHMMEDKOYA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :16/04/2010
O R D E R
V.K. MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------
Bail Application No.2167 of 2010
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th 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 petitioner apprehends arrest connected with
Crime No. 47/2010 of Kunnamangalam Police Station in
which offences punishable under Sections 353, 332 and
308 of I.P.C. and Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of
River Banks & Restriction on Removal of Sand Act are
involved.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on
20.2.2010 at 8.15 hours, when the accused was
transporting sand from the premises of Pullavoor M.I.T.
Pump House without having any permit in jeep bearing
registration No.KEV 9065, the defacto complainant and
party stopped the jeep and started to examine the
documents of the jeep and while so, the accused drove
the jeep in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger
Bail Application No.2167 of 2010 2
human life and thus prevented the defacto complainant
from doing his official duty and also caused injury to a
police officer and in the meantime as the defacto
complainant and party have given way to the jeep by
suddenly jumping from the road, they escaped from death
and thus the accused has committed the above offences.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
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 petitioner as the same will adversely
affect the investigation in the above crime which is now in
progress. It is also relevant to note the grievous nature of
the injuries sustained by the victim and the weapons used
to inflict such injuries which are also relevant facts which
persuade this Court to decline anticipatory bail in favour of
the petitioner.
In the result, I find no reason to grant
Bail Application No.2167 of 2010 3
anticipatory bail to the petitioner 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
mns/