IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7881 of 2009()
1. K.T.LIJESH @ BOBBY,
... Petitioner
2. C.H.AFSAL, S/O. MOOSA,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. S.H.O., KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :09/02/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.7881 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are
accused Nos.2 and 1 respectively in Crime No.208 of 2009 of
Kannur Town Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 332, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that on 2.5.2009, while the
de facto complainant, the driver of a KSRTC bus, was attempting
to take the bus on the reverse direction, the accused persons
abused the driver of the bus and attacked him. The conductor of
the bus was also abused and attacked. It is alleged that the
accused persons took away the switch key of the bus. It is also
alleged that the de facto complainant was prevented from
discharging his official duties. The further allegation is that the
accused persons were under the influence of alcohol and that
they are employees in a private bus.
BA No.7881/2009 2
4. The second petitioner produced a wound certificate
before the learned Sessions Judge to support the contention that
he sustained injury as a result of the hit by the KSRTC bus. The
learned Sessions Judge noticed that the de facto complainant in
the present case was admitted in the hospital and the FI
statement was recorded much earlier to the point of time of
which the second petitioner was allegedly admitted in the
hospital. Prima facie, this would show that the second petitioner
had attempted to create documents to escape from the
allegations levelled against him. For the aforesaid reasons and
also taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case,
I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to get the
discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl