IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5369 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.500/06 OF VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 7, 8 & 10 (S): ------------------------------------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.SADANANDAN AGED 32 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, ETHAI CENTRE, ENGANDIYOOR THRISSUR 2. AZEEZ, S/O.ABU, AGED 48 YEARS VALIYAKATH HOUSE, POLAIKKA DESOM ENGANDIYOOR, THRISSUR 3. SHABEER @ SHEBIN, S/O.ASHRAF VALIYAKATH HOUSE, POLAIKKAL DESOM ENGANDIYOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/ STATE --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALAPPAD. 2. STATE REP: BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5369 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.7, 8 and 10 in Crime No.500 of 2006 of Vadanappally Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that charge was laid in the case against six persons. Later, the investigating officer filed an application before the learned Magistrate seeking permission for further investigation of the case. An order was passed by the learned Magistrate granting permission. Further investigation is going on. It is submitted that now the petitioners are sought to be implicated as accused Nos.7, 8 and 10. They are absolutely innocent, submits the BA No. 5369/2009 2 counsel. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was collusion between the defacto complainant and the investigating officer to save accused Nos.1 to 6 who are the members of a particular political party and to achieve the same, the petitioners are sought to be added as accused. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that further investigation was absolutely justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that accused No.7 used a sword while accused No.8 used an axe for commission of the offence in this case. Accused No.10 used an iron rod for commission of the offence. It is submitted that there are enough materials to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are also guilty of the offence. 5. For the purpose of disposing of this application for anticipatory bail, it is not proper to decide whether the allegations made by the petitioners are true or not. All these are matters to be considered at the time of trial. Now, the only question is whether the petitioners are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. BA No. 5369/2009 3 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that anticipatory bail can be granted in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, it would affect the proper investigation of the case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl