IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8502 of 2011 CRIME NO.839 OF 2011 OF KASARAGOD TOWN POLICE STATION. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 1: --------------------------------------- 1. JAMALUDHIN K.J., S/O.MOIDU, AGED 25 YEARS, FISH MARKET HALL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. RAFEEQ K.M., S/O.MOIDU, AGED 28 YEARS, FISH MARKET HALL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGOD TOWN POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 8502 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of November, 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 respectively accused Nos.2 and 1 in Crime No.839 of 2011 of Kasaragod Town Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 17.9.2011, the defacto complainant and his friends went for a marriage reception. At about 10.30 P.M., while they were about to leave the place, accused No.2 restrained the defacto complainant and at that time, accused No.1 stabbed him on his chest. The defacto complainant was taken to the Unity Hospital, Mangalore and he was admitted there. BAIL APPL. NO. 8502 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. The injuries sustained by the defacto complainant are grievous. 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 ahz/