IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2067 of 2010()
1. CHEKKUTTY @ SUNIL, AGED 29 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. AMBIL @ SANISH, AGED 25 YEARS,
3. SAJU ANTONY, AGED 30 YEARS,
4. VISHNU @ AASAN, AGED 23 YEARS,
5. SHABU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN,
6. MONAPPI @ BIJU ANTONY, AGED 35 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. S.I.OF POLICE, NEDUMUDI POLICE STATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR
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. 2067 of 2010
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 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. 5/2010 of Nedumudi Police Station, Alappuzha in
which offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147,
148, 149, 323, 324, 326 of I.P.C. are involved.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on
05.01.2010 at about 9 p.m. the petitioners formed an
unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like iron rods
and inflicted injuries on defacto complainant, his wife and
brothers.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners
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
B.A.No. 2067 of 2010
-:2:-
anticipatory bail to the petitioners as the same will adversely
affect the investigation in the above crime which is now in
progress. The grievous nature of the injuries sustained by
the victim and the weapons used to inflict such injuries are
also relevant facts which persuade this Court to decline the
relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners.
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
ttb