IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6752 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.682/2009 OF WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- MANOHARAN, S/O. RAJAN, THIRUKKOTTIL HOUSE, VELAPPAYA P.O., WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM. SRI. M..S BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6752 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th 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 the accused in Crime No.682/2009 of Wadakkanchery Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 279, 294(b), 225-B and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 19/10/2009, while the police was on duty, the petitioner came riding on a motor bike along with two pillion riders, in a rash and negligent manner. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police asked the petitioner to stop the vehicle. The vehicle was stopped at a distance. Thereafter, when the police tried to arrest the petitioner, he abused the police in filthy language, pelted stones against them and ran away. 4. The petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge. That application was B.A. No. 6752/2009 2 dismissed by the order dated 2/11/2009. The learned Sessions Judge noticed that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. He was involved in an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In two other cases, the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was alleged against the petitioner and in another case, the offence under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code was alleged. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except the case initiated for the offence under Section 160 of Indian Penal Code, all other cases ended in acquittal. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner is that he would be harassed and manhandled by the police on arrest. It is pointed out that the petitioner had filed a petition against the police officers alleging that electricity connection to the house of the petitioner was disconnected by removing the fuse. No material is produced before court to establish that such a petition was filed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioner is arrested, there would be no harassment or B.A. No. 6752/2009 3 manhandling by the police. The police are interested only in the proper investigation of the crime. These submissions are recorded. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would adversely affect the investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. Issue copy of this order to both sides. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm