IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7090 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1261/2011 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 : -------------------------- 1. SUJILASH,S/O.SUDARSANAN,SUJILA BHAVAN, MALAYADI,VINOBHA NIKETHAN.P.O,THOLICODU, VITHURA,NEDUMANGADU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUBHILASH,S/O.SUDARSANAN,SUJILA BHAVAN, MALAYADI,VINOBHA NIKETHAN.P.O,THOLICODU, VITHURA,NEDUMANGADU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,NEDUMANGADU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.7090 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1261 of 2011 of Nedumangad Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 294 (b), 506(ii) and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 13/07/2011 at 7.30 P.M., the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant and his father with iron rods and swords. As a result of the attack, they sustained injuries. One of the injuries noted on the de facto complainant is an incised wound on forehead extending to frontal region of scalp to skull bone (6 x 2 x 4 cm.). 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature and the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are also serious in nature. In the facts and Bail Appln.No.7090/2011 : 2 : circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, 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 skj