IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6186 of 2011 CRIME NO.363 OF 2011 OF POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.4 --------------------------------- JIBIN, AGE 21, S/O.ESHAPPAN, CHETTIKKAD, THRICHATTUKULAM P.O., PANAVALLI PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, ALONG WITH BA NO. 6550 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NOs. 6186 and 6550 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 O R D E R These are applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. B.A.No.6186 of 2011 is filed by accused No.4 and B.A.No.6550 of 2011 is filed by accused No.5 in Crime No.363 of 2011 of Poochakkal Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 326, 354 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Originally Sections 354 and 326 were not included. On the basis of the nature of the injury sustained by the de facto complainant, Section 326 was also added. 3. The allegation is that on 21.6.2011 at 2 A.M., the accused persons trespassed into the residential compound of the de facto complainant, destroyed the car parked in front of the house and thereafter forcibly entered into the house of the de facto complainant Bail Appl. NOs.6186 and 6550 of 2011 :: 2 :: by breaking open the door and attacked the de facto complainant and his wife with deadly weapons like iron rod. They sustained injuries. The de facto complainant sustained grievous hurt. 4. In B.A.No.6186 of 2011, an order was passed on 9.8.2011, directing accused No.4 to appear before the investigating officer on two days, in order to consider the application for anticipatory bail in a favourable manner. That order was passed on the submission made by either side about the nature of the offence which did not include an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. In other words, both the parties were under the mistaken impression that Section 326 was not alleged against any of the accused. It has now turned to be a mistake, as Section 326 is specifically alleged against the accused persons. 5. 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, Bail Appl. NOs.6186 and 6550 of 2011 :: 3 :: it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/