IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7190 of 2009 CRIME NO.821 OF 2009 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- M.A. AKBAR, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. ABDULSALEEM, MATTATH HOUSE, KOLAVAYAL, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MURUGAN P.V. RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARGOD. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARGOD. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARGOD. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7190 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.9 in Crime No.821 of 2009 of Kasaragod Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 353, 332 and 395 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 15.11.2009 at 5.45 PM, about 150 persons attacked the police party with weapons and also pelted stones on them while discharging official duties. It is also alleged that two tear gas shells were forcibly taken away from the place of incident. It is also alleged that damage was caused to the police jeep. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is an accused in four cases registered in Kasaragod Police Station. B.A. NO. 7190 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. 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. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/