IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6570 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.189/2008 OF MANJESHWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3: ------------------------------------------- AZEEZ, S/O.MUHAMMED, KALLARAPPOTHI, PAIVELIKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.JOHNY THOMAS RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION (CR NO.189 OF 2008 KASARAGOD DISTRICT. SRI. AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6570 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 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.3 in Crime No.189/2008 of Manjeshwaram Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 2/7/2008 between 9.30 P.M and 10 P.M., while the de facto complainant was proceeding on a motor bike, the accused persons intercepted that vehicle and robbed a sum of Rs.18,000/-, two mobile phones, ATM card, driving licence and the motor bike which was being driven by him. It is alleged that the accused persons came there in two motor bikes and committed the offence. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first accused is a notorious criminal and that he is involved in other cases. B.A. No.6570/2009 2 5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner and the other accused are grave in nature. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine. In a very serious crime like the one, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in the facts and circumstances of the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that 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 scm