IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 466 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.19/2010 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. PRASANAN PILLAI, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, VAZHOTTU PADEETTAHIL, MYNAGAPALLY NORTH, MYNAGAPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. MAHESH KUMAR, KALEELIL VEEDU, MYNAGAPALLY NORTH, MYNAGAPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.466 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010 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.19 of 2010 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 294(b), 353 and 225 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The crime was registered on the basis of the information given by the Excise Inspector, Kunnathur Excise Circle. The prosecution case is that on 5.1.2010, at 7.45 P.M., the Excise Party took into custody one Radhakrishnan, who was engaged in the sale of arrack in his hotel. The allegation is that the accused persons obstructed the official duties of the de facto complainant and his party, tried to rescue the arrested person and attempted to destroy the thondi articles. It is also alleged that the accused persons uttered obscene words against the de facto complainant and party. BA No.466/2010 2 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that 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 csl