IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5699 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.255/2009 OF KUMBALA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- MUHAMMED IQBAL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, KALANDARSHAH MANZIL, BANDYODU, MANAYALPADY VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CR.NO.517/2008 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION) KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5699 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.255 of 2009 of Kumbla Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324 and 153(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 8.9.2009, at about 9.15 P.M., the defacto complainant, a student aged 17 years, came from Mangalore in a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation bus and he got down at Bandiyode. While coming home, he was attacked by the accused who came in an autorickshaw. The defacto complainant sustained injuries. It is alleged that he was attacked stating that he belongs to Hindu community. 4. Communal clashes and attacks based on communal considerations are rampant in Kasaragod Taluk. Certain directions were issued by this Court in a batch of cases to combat such activities in the Taluk. BA No.5699/2009 2 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of Crl.P.C. can be granted in favour of the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would affect the smooth and proper investigation of the case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl