IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6631 of 2011 CRIME NO.448 OF 2011 OF VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: --------------------------------------- 1. SHAMIL CHANDRAN,S/O.CHANDRAN,AGED 26 YEARS, ELECTRICIAN,KUSUMALAYAM,MEENKUNNU, AZHIKODE,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. PIYUSH.K.P,S/O.LATE PAVITHRAN,AGED 22 YEARS, ALBATROS APPARTMENTS,KISAN ROAD,MANAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, VALAPATTANAM-670010. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 6631 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of August, 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.448 of 2011 of Valapattanam Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 456 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegations against the accused are the following: The de facto complainant is running a Resort. The accused persons used to take alcoholic drinks outside the Resort, causing hindrance to the smooth running of the Resort. This was objected to by the de facto complainant. On account of that enmity, on 9.7.2011 at 10.30 PM, the accused persons ransacked the Resort and committed damage to the tune of Rupees One lakh to the de facto complainant BAIL APPL. NO. 6631 OF 2011 :: 2 :: by destroying doors, wash basins, almirahs, window panes and other items. 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 ahz/