IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 433 of 2010 CRIME NO.21 OF 2010 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT PETITIONERS : ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. T.V.BABU, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.POKKAN,MUZHAKKEEL, THURUTHY.P.O, CHERUVATHOOR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. P.P.RAGHAVAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.AMBADI,THALAKKAT,THURUTHY.P.O, CHERUVATHOOR,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. A.K.RAMESAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.A.AMBUNJI, MUZHAKKEEL, THURUTHY.P.O, CHERUVATHOOR,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. E.T.VIJAYAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.T.RAMAN, MUZHAKKEEL, THURUTHY P.O., CHERUVATHOOR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. M.SUNIL, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.K.V.RAGHAVAN, MUZHAKKEEL, THURUTHY.P.O. CHERUVATHOOR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. M.SURESAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.K.V.RAGHAVAN, MUZHAKKEEL, THURUTHY.P.O, CHERUVATHOOR,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. K.VINOD, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN, MUZHAKKEEL, THURUTHY.P.O, CHERUVATHOOR,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 8. V.V.ROOPESH, AGED 32 YEARS, MUZHAKKEEL, THURUTHY.P.O, CHERUVATHOOR,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 9. E.V.RAJESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. E.V.RAGHAVAN,MUZHAKKEEL, THURUTHY.P.O, CHERUVATHOOR,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.21 OF 2010), KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 433 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.6, 10, 9, 5, 4, 8, 7, 11 and 3 in Crime No.21 of 2010 of Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 153 and 353 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 12.1.2010 at 8.30 PM, while the Sub Inspector of Police, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and party were on patrol duty, they saw five persons consuming alcohol in a public place. The police party went there and apprehended three of them. The other persons ran away. At that time, about 25 people came there and stated that no police could take any person from that place. Finding that the police could not B.A. NO. 433 OF 2010 :: 2 :: take the three arrested persons, the police retreated. They could not bring the arrested persons to the police station. They were rescued by the accused persons. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present Sub Inspector of Police took charge in Chandera Police Station only recently and there arose an incident, in which, the Sub Inspector of Police assaulted an innocent person. He was admitted in the hospital and a petition was submitted to the District Superintendent of Police and the Honourable Minister for Home Affairs making allegations against the Sub Inspector of Police. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners and the other accused were among the protesters against the illegal acts of the Sub Inspector of Police and, therefore, they were falsely implicated in the present case. 5. I have gone through the case diary. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and also after perusing the records, prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no offence is made out against the petitioners. The offences alleged B.A. NO. 433 OF 2010 :: 3 :: against the petitioners are grave in nature. In a case of this nature, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/