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. 8736 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1584/2011 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS(S): ACCUSED 1,2 ------------------------------- 1. SHINTAPPAN @ SHARATH,S/O.SHYAMALA, KANJIRATHUMPARAMBIL, PUTHIYA ROAD, THAMMANAM P.O, COCHIN 682 032. 2. NISSAR, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, PALATHURUTHY PARAMBU, THAMMANAM P.O, COCHIN 682 032. BY ADV. SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, CR.1584/2011 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RENJITH 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.8736 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 3rd 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. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1584 of 2011 of Palarivattom Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following : On 28.8.2011, at about 4 P.M., while the de facto complainant was going to his wife's house on a motor bike, he was intercepted by the accused and he was assaulted. They also destroyed the bike. The local people assembled there and at that time, the accused persons ran away. The de facto complainant went to the police station and the crime was registered. While coming back at BA 8736/11 2 about 7.30 P.M., the accused again restrained the de facto complainant and directed him to withdraw the complaint made to the police. The de facto complainant did not agree for the same. Therefore, he was again beaten by the accused with iron rod. He sustained fracture of his ring finger. 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 csl