IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6195 of 2009 CRIME NO.470 OF 2009 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ HAREESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SIVAKUMAR, VARUTHATTU PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, NEDUVANCILA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENTS: STATE -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6195 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.470 of 2009 of Parassala Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are under Sections 354, 452 and 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 10.8.2009 at about 8.30 PM, the accused persons forcibly entered into the duty room in the hospital, where the de facto complainant was working, and outraged her modesty. It is also alleged that the accused persons uttered words and made gestures with an intention to outrage her modesty. 4. The petitioner moved for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge. That application was dismissed by the order dated 1.10.2009. B.A. NO. 6195 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the other accused, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 ahz/