IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8005 of 2011 CRIME NO.11042 OF 2011 OF KOCHI CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION (EAST) EDAPPALLY. PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------------ JOSE LINAKER CELHO, S/O.ANTONY DONAIL CELHO, AGED 19 YEARS, DAIVATHUM PARAMBIL HOUSE, LISE HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., KOCHI-682018. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, (EAST) EDAPPALLY, PIN-682030. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 8005 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 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 accused in Crime No.11042 of 2011 of Kochi City Traffic Police Station (East) Edappally. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 134A and 134B of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 1.9.2011 at 1.30 P.M., the accused drove a car through Vyttila-Kundannur road in a very rash and negligent manner and the car hit against three women, two of whom died on the spot. The other women sustained serious injuries. After the hit, the car was not stopped by the accused. He drove fast. The local people chased the car and the police was also informed. It is also alleged that the accused escaped and therefore, he could not be arrested. BAIL APPL. NO. 8005 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious 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. 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 and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/