IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1045 of 2010() ---------------------------------- MC.209/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY CRIME NO. 58/2010 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATION, KANNUR .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 : ------------------------------------- 1. ABINESH.M, S/O.ASHOKAN, AGED 26 YEARS, KATTIPARAMBATH MANGADAN, P.O.MOOZHIKKARA, KODIYERI. 2. SIJEESH, S/O.SASIDHARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, KANIVAYAL HOUSE, P.O.MOOZHIKKARA, KODIYERI. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHOKLI POLICE STATION, KANNUR, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1045 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 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.1 and 2 in Crime No.58/2010 of Chokli Police Station, Kannur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following: Renovation work of Moozhikkara Juma Masjid was over and it was scheduled to be inaugurated on 20.01.2010. Decoration works were going on. On 17.01.2010, when the de facto complainant and his friends were engaged in the decoration works, the accused persons, three in number, came on a motor bike belonging to the first accused and hurled a country made bomb towards the de facto complainant. The bomb exploded. However, nobody sustained any injuries. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are grave in nature. It is stated that the political clashes were going on in B.A. No. 1045/2010 2 the place between CPI(M) and NDF workers. Whatever may be the dispute, throwing a county bomb towards a place of worship is a heinous crime. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are involved in several other cases. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln