IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5956 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ CRIME NO.194/2009 OF KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A7 TO A 13: --------------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIYAN, KOTTILPARA, KOZHIPARA. 2. PREMDAS, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, KOTTILPARA, KOZHIPARA. 3. SATHEESH, S/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 23 YEARS, KOTTILPARA, KOZHIPARA. 4. GEORGE, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.ANTHONISWAMY, PLASOMPATHY, KOZHIPARA. 5. MANIKANDAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ARUCHAMI, PLASOMPATHY, KOZHIPARA. 6. SUBEER, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.UDUMAN, KOTILPARA, KOZHIPARA. 7. SIVAN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ARUCHAMI, KUNJUMENON CHALLA, KOTTILPARA, KOZHIPARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, COYALMANNAM POLICE STATION. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.5956 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 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.7 to 13 in Crime No.194/2009 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 506, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioners very vehemently argued that no materials are available in the case to connect the petitioners with the offence. It is also submitted that the case was foisted against the petitioners due to political rivalry. 4. I have gone through the Case Diary. Prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that no case is made out against the petitioners. The de facto complainant and others sustained grievous hurt. They sustained B.A. No.5956 / 2009 2 fractures. It is true that the accused persons and the injured belong to different political parties and that the incident happened immediately after the results of the election were declared. The allegation is that after declaration of the results, the workers of the successful party pelted stones against several houses. This was questioned by de facto complainant and others. The allegation is that on account of the same, the accused persons in the present case committed the present crime. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm