IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7883 of 2011() ----------------------------- Crime No.809 of 2011 of Varkala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. PETITIONER: ACCUSED : ------------------------ MUKESH, AGE 22, S/O.BALACHANDRAN, SHAILA BHAVAN, PALACHIRA, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT: STATE: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.7883 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.809 of 2011 of Varkala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 294(b) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 52 & 201 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. The de facto complainant is the motor vehicles inspector of Attingal R.T. Office. On 24/08/2011 at 8 A.M. while the de facto complainant and party were on checking duty at Palachira Junction, they found that two persons in an auto rickshaw parked in the auto stand tried to escape. On inspection of the vehicle, they found two gas cylinders in the auto rickshaw. It was found that the gas was being used as fuel for running the auto rickshaw. When the de facto complainant and party took steps to remove the auto rickshaw, Bail Appln.No.7883/2011 : 2 : the two persons who left the place earlier and fifty others came together and prevented the de facto complainant and party from discharging their official duties. An attempt was made to assault the de facto complainant and party and it is alleged that obscene words were used against them. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, 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 skj True copy P.A. to Judge