IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2862 of 2009(I) ----------------------------------------------- CRIME NO.92/2009 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.4,5 AND 6: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAJI @ SIDDIQUE, AGED 32, S/O.MUHAMMED, THURAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKUDANGAD P.O., PATTAMBI, PATHPPURAM, PALAKKAD. 2. BASHEER, AGED 39, S/O.SYED MUHAMMED, MUTHUMUTTATHU HOUSE, CHEKANNOOR, MUTHUR P.O., VALLAMKULAM VILLAGE, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM. 3. FOUSIA, AGED 24, W/O.BASHEER, MUTHUMUTTATHU HOUSE, CHEKANNOOR, MUTHUR P.O., VALLAMKULAM VILLAGE, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ABHILASH BHASKAR RESPONDENT/ STATE & COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM. (THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA). SRI. P.RAVEENDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.2862 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.4,5 and 6 in Crime No.92/2009 of Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the Case Diary. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not involved in the offence and there is nothing to connect the petitioners with the offence. On a careful consideration of the materials on record, prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. There are enough materials on record to show that the petitioners are involved in the offence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on Annexure A1, photocopy of the affidavit dated 14/05/2009, which according to the petitioners, is an affidavit sworn to by the B.A. No.2862/ 2009 Page numbers defacto complainant. I do not think that it is necessary to consider the averments in the affidavit in order to consider the question whether the petitioners are entitled to get anticipatory bail. Accused Nos.1 and 2 filed Crl.M.C. No. 1646/2009 to quash the proceedings and in that case, the affidavit sworn to by the defacto complainant was pressed into service. This Court by the order dated 4/08/2009, rejected the prayer made by accused Nos. 1 and 2. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not think that the petitioners are 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