IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8296 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.882 OF 2011 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DT. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 - 3 --------------------------------- 1. SHAJI @ KORA SHAJI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. SAMUEL PETER, THURUTHIL BUNGLOW, MUKKAD, KAVANADU.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. JOHN BRITO @ BRITO, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. ROBERT, KAMBIPURAYIL VEEDU, MUKKAD, KAVANADU.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SHAJI @ ANIL KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. ROBERT, KAMBIPURAYIL VEEDU, MUKKAD, KAVANADU.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP: BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY P.P.SMT.R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.8296 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.882 of 2011 of Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 452, 341, 323, 324, 325, 354 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant was working as a Srank in a boat owned by the brother of accused Nos.2 and 3. It would appear that there were some disputes between the defacto complainant and the Manager of the boat. 4. The prosecution case is that on 28.9.2011 at 12.30 B.A.No. 8296 OF 2011 2 P.M, the accused persons forcibly entered into the house of the defacto complainant, and attacked him with dangerous weapons, fisted him, and caused grievous hurt to him. He lost a tooth. There is an allegation that his wife was also attacked. 5.The allegations levelled against the petitioners would disclose commission of serious offences. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may become necessary. I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms