IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8541 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1165/2011 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------- ANANDU SANKAR.S,S/O.SASIDARAN PILLAI, CHAITHRAM,THODAYANOOR , KATTAMPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION CHADAYAMANGALAM 691 534. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.8541 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 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.1 in Crime No.1165 of 2011 of Chadayamangalam Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 506(ii) and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The de facto complainant's nephew is studying at Nilamel College. On 3.10.2011, he was manhandled by some students in the college. He informed the matter to his father and relatives. The de facto complainant and his relative waited outside the college in the evening to see that the nephew of the de facto complainant is not further attacked. The allegation is BA 8541/11 2 that the accused attacked the de facto complainant and his relative. Iron rods were used for attacking the de facto complainant. It is alleged that a sword stick was pointed towards the relative of the de facto complainant threatening to kill him. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl