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. 9604 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.904 OF 2011 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONERS : ACCUSEDE NO.1&3: ------------------------------------ 1. RAJESH, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 35 YEARS, KOYIPURATHU VEEDU, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. PRADEEP, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT MELE MANGATTU VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.PRATHAPACHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.P.KRISHNA KUMAR (ALAPPUZHA) SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O.OF POLICE, ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RENJITH 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.9604 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 petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.904 of 2011 of Anchalummoodu Police Station, Kollam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 1.8.2011 at about 9.30 P.M., the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and attacked one Arun Kumar with swords and iron rods. Arun Kumar sustained very serious injuries. He was admitted in the District Hospital from where he was referred to the Medical BA No.9604/11 2 College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The de facto complainant sustained several cut injuries and marks. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. In the facts and 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 csl