IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6380 of 2011() ----------------------------- Crime No.411 of 2011 OF POTHENKODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------- SANAL KUMAR S,AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SAMBASIVAN, POTHENKODU, MARUTHUM MOOLA, POTHENKODU P.O.,TRIVANDRUM BY ADV. SRI.M.ZIYAD SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHENCODEU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY P.P.SRI.T.K.RENJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.6380 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 ORDER The petitioner says that he is accused No.1 in Crime No.411 of 2011 of Pothenkode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District . The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is accused No.3 in that crime. The application is filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 26.6.2011, while the defacto complainant and his friend were travelling on a motor bike, they were intercepted by the accused persons and they were forcibly taken by the accused on two motor bikes to a lonely place. The defacto complainant and his friend were B.A.No. 6380 OF 2011 2 beaten up and their mobile phones and the bike were forcibly taken away. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is not a case where the police should arrest the petitioner. He relied on the decision in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P, (AIR 1994 SC 1349) in support of his contention. In paragraph 23 of the said decision while categorizing the offences which are graver in nature, the Supreme Court mentioned robbery and dacoity as grave offences. In the present case, the offences alleged is dacoity. Going by the allegations, two youngsters were forcibly taken away by more than ten persons and their valuable properties were taken after causing hurt to them. 5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are very grave in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the B.A.No. 6380 OF 2011 3 proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms