IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1103 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.706/2009 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- RIVAJ P.V., S/O.T.P.KHALID, AGED 24 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT NAFEESA MANZIL, KORAN PEEDIKA, PARIYARAM AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1103 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.17 in Crime No.706 of 2009 of Taliparamba Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 395, 427 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(c) of the PDPP Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 15.11.2009, at 4.30 P.M., while the police party was on patrol duty, they were attacked by about 45 persons belonging to Indian Union Muslim League, who came on 15 motor bikes and obstructed the discharge of official duties of the policemen. The policemen were attacked with dangerous weapons and they had sustained serious injuries. It is stated that the incident occurred in the wake of a clash between the members of the IUML and CPI(M). 4. The offences alleged against the accused are grave in BA No. 1103/2010 2 nature. The situation was tense in the area. The policemen were engaged in maintaining peace in the locality. At that time, it is alleged that, large number of people attacked the policemen. I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl