IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5921 of 2011 CRIME NO.325 OF 2011 OF VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: --------------------------------------- M.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAPANICKER, MINI BHAVAN, MANALI, KOLLODE, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 5921 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of August, 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 accused No.1 in Crime No.325 of 2011 of Vilappilsala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act and Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 8.6.2011, an accident took place in the quarry owned by the second accused and run by the first accused. Two employees sustained serious injuries and later, they succumbed to the injuries. The prosecution alleges that the accused persons unauthorisedly used explosives and jack-hammer in the quarry. BAIL APPL. NO.5921 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 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/