High Court Kerala High Court

Anilkumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
Anilkumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5476 of 2009()


1. ANILKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :30/09/2009

 O R D E R
                     K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                  ---------------------------
                  B.A. No. 5476 of 2009
              ------------------------------------
        Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009


                         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.1 in Crime No.419/2009 of

Vadakkanchery Police Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are

under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324 and 326 read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The date of occurrence was on 13.08.2009. The

defacto complainant and the petitioner are relatives. It is

submitted that there is a dispute regarding pathway

between the parities. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that on the application submitted by the

petitioner, suvery officials came to inspect the property in

dispute. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner’s sister was attacked by the

defacto complainant and Crime No. 420 of 2009 was

registered against him.

B.A. No. 5476 of 2009 2

4. The Bail Application is seriously opposed by the

learned Public Prosecutor. The wound certificate would

disclose that the defacto complainant sustained several

injuries including the injuries on the head. The allegation is

that the first accused attacked him with an iron rod.

5 Taking into account the facts and circumstances

of the case and the injuries sustained by the defacto

complainant, I am not inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to

the petitioner. To my mind, the petitioner is not entitled to

the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

ln