IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6915 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.512/09 OF MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/NOT AN ACCUSED --------------------------------------------- SUBY P.M., AGED 29 S/O.P.K.MOHANDAS, S.N.V. PUTHENVEEDU, MUKKULAM EAST P.O., ELAMKADU TOP, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6915 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 ORDER 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.512 of 2009 of Mundakayam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 225, 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) of the PDPP Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the father of the first accused was arrested in connection with an abkari offence. While he was being taken in the jeep belonging to the excise party, they were obstructed by the accused persons in the present case by putting across the road a Mahindra jeep. It is also alleged that they tried to forcibly take away the father of accused No.1 from the custody of excise officials. They also tried to take away the thondi articles kept in the excise jeep. 3. The offences alleged against the accused persons are BA No.6915/2009 2 serious in nature. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be granted in favour of the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl