IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 85 of 2010() --------------------------- CRIME NO.484/2009 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NO.7 ------------------------------------------- AL-AMEEN, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.ASSAINAR, MANGAD HOUSE,MEETHAL MANGAD, KOOLIKUNDU,P.O. BARA, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.85 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.7 in Crime No.484 of 2009 of Bekal Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 24.12.2009, one Gangadharan committed suicide at his residence. There was a suicide note in which mention is made about some persons having attacked him and having robbed Rs.20,000/- and a gold ring from him. 4. The prosecution case is that the accused persons, who are friends, used to gather at a bus stop near a sawmill and used to sit there at odd hours. They used to take drinks there. The allegation is that at about 1 A.M., on 24.12.2009, while Gangadharan was walking through that side to his house, he was attacked by the accused persons and the offences mentioned above were committed. Because of the incident, Gangadharan BA No.85/2010 2 committed suicide. 5. Crime No.482 of 2009 was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation was conducted. Investigation revealed that the accused persons committed the offence. Accordingly, in Crime No.482 of 2009 Section 306 IPC was incorporated. Crime No.484 of 2009 was registered for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code which was subsequently altered to 397 IPC. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a student, aged 18 years. He was falsely implicated in the case. His name was not mentioned in the F.I. Statement either in Crime No.482 of 2009 or in Crime No.484 of 2009. It is submitted that the deceased and the petitioner belong to the same place. Had the petitioner been there in the gang, who committed the offence, certainly the de facto complainant would have mentioned the name of the petitioner. 7. The offences alleged against the accused are grave in nature. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that there are enough materials available in the case to show the complicity of the petitioner in the offence. It is submitted that BA No.85/2010 3 one Divakaran, who is the watcher in the sawmill, had witnessed the incident and he had stated the name of the petitioner as a person who committed the offence along with the other accused. 8. While disposing of an application for anticipatory bail, meticulous analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and detailed consideration of the contentions put forward by the accused is not necessary. If such an exercise is undertaken, necessarily findings and observations would arise, which may turn out to be prejudicial to either the prosecution or to the defence. The facts of the case and the contentions need be considered only for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the case is a fit one for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction of the court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. I have carefully considered the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. I have also perused the case diary. I am not inclined to accept the contention put forward that there is no prima facie evidence to implicate the petitioner. 10. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the BA No.85/2010 4 case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be granted in favour of the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl