IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8329 of 2011 CRIME NO.618 OF 2011 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: -------------------- 1. HARI, S/O BALAKRISHANAN, KUTTIYIL KIZHAKKATHIL HOUSE, ORIPURAM, CHENNITHALA P.O, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. UDAYAN, S/O BALAKRISHNAN, KUTTIYIL KIZHAKKATHIL HOUSE, ORIPURAM, CHENNITHALA P.O, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ACHANKUNJU RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERLA REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 8329 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.618 of 2011 of Kareelakulangara Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 448, 447, 452 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 1.10.2011 at 00.30 hours, the accused persons trespassed into the house where the defacto complainant was staying, and attacked her and her husband with iron rods. It is also alleged that the accused persons destroyed the motor bike belonging to the husband of the defacto complainant and caused a loss of `20,000/-. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the mother of the defacto complainant eloped with the first BAIL APPL. NO. 8329 OF 2011 :: 2 :: accused. This resulted in the divorce of the marriage between the mother and father of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the offence was committed to see that the defacto complainant is ousted from the house. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/