IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6684 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRMP.2474/2011 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO.135 OF 2011 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DT. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------- 1. HASIM ,AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SALAM, RESIDING OPPOSITE KOTTIKULAM JUMAIN MOSQUE,PALLIKKARA IIND VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. SHARAFUDHEEN,AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMAD, R/AT KOTTIKULAM, PALLIKKARA IIND VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. BY P.P.SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.6684 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.135 of 2011 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 332 and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 5.3.2011 after midnight, the accused persons were found sitting on the railway track near Kottikulam Railway Station. It was alleged that they were causing nuisance and disturbances to the devotees of a temple. The festival in the temple was going on. It is also alleged that the accused persons were consuming alcohol, sitting on the railway track. B.A.No.6684 OF 2011 2 The local people advised them not to do so, since it was dangerous to sit on the railway track, since during fire works, they would not hear the sound of the coming train. They did not obey the advice. The matter was reported to the police. 4. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police asked them to move from the railway track. The accused questioned the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police as to under what authority he was saying so. They attacked the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, shouting that he must be killed. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police was attacked with stones. He sustained several cut injuries on his head. The policemen could not resist the attack made by the assailants. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police was removed to the hospital, where he was treated as inpatient till 15.3.2011. 5. Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are engineering college students and that they were roped in without any materials. It is submitted that the petitioners were not identified. The learned counsel also submitted that some of the accused B.A.No.6684 OF 2011 3 were arrested and they were severely manhandled by the police. The matter was reported to the Court when those accused were produced before the Court. It is submitted that the petitioners also apprehend the same type of third degree treatment at the hands of the police, if they are arrested. It is submitted that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail should be granted. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners are grave in nature. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police sustained several injuries due to the brutal attack made by the accused. It is necessary to arrest and interrogate the petitioners. The petitioners are not entitled to get the discretionary relief in the case. 7. I have gone through the Case Diary as well. Considering the submissions made by either side, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 should be granted in favour of the petitioners. It is true that the petitioners are students. It is also true that there is an allegation that the other accused persons B.A.No.6684 OF 2011 4 were manhandled by the police after arrest. That by itself is not a reason to assume that the petitioners would be manhandled by the police after their arrest. If the policemen were to do so, the petitioners have effective remedy. Merely based on the allegation that there is a likelihood that the petitioners would be manhandled by the police, as was allegedly done to some other accused, I do not think that the normal course of investigation of the case can be interfered with by granting to the petitioners the unmerited discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms