IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6074 of 2011() ------------------------- Crime No.675 of 2011 of Chadayamangalam Police Station, Kollam District. PETITIONERS : ACCUSED ------------------------------ 1. SUDHEESH KUMAR ALIAS SUDHEESH, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.MURALIDHARAN PILLAI, MUKESH BHAVAN, THEVANOOR, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. SUNIL, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.RAVIDNRAN PILLAI, SYAMALA VILASOM, THEVANNOOR, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPCTOR OF POLICE, CHANDAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, CHADAYAMANAGALAM – 691534, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6074 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 6 in Crime No.675 of 2011 of Chadayamangalam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 294(b) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant sustained grievous hurt in the occurrence which took place on 12/06/2011. The allegation is that the accused attacked him with iron rods. It is also alleged that accused No.2 wielded a knife which resulted in an injury on the face of the friend of the de facto complainant. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are grave 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 Bail Appln.No.6074/2011 : 2 : 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 skj