IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7766 of 2009()
1. RENJITH.R., AGED 23 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SREEKUMAR.T., AGED 24 YEARS,
3. JAYASHANKAR.K.P., AGED 24 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :20/01/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.7766 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are
accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 in Crime No.741 of 2009 of Nemom
Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 120B read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 26.9.2009, at 9.15
P.M., the de facto complainant, while riding on a motor bike
along with another person, was stopped by two persons. They
spilled chilly powder in the eyes of the de facto complainant and
his friend. One Giri, who is known to the de facto complainant,
and seven other persons attacked the de facto complainant and
his friend. The de facto complainant sustained grievous injuries
including two fractures. It is alleged that the de facto
complainant was working in a Pharmacy of one Dr.Ajith. Later,
the de fato complainant left the service of Dr.Ajith and joined as
BA No.7766/2009 2
Manager in another Pharmacy. According to the prosecution,
Giri and his associates were hired by Dr.Ajith, and the de facto
complainant was attacked and injuries was caused to him as
requested by Dr.Ajith.
4. The facts and circumstances, prima facie, shows that
this is a case where a goonda gang was engaged by a person to
attack the de facto complainant.
5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the injuries sustained
and the allegations made against the petitioners, I do not think
that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to
the petitioners. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be
required during investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to
the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation
of the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl