IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8231 of 2011 CRIME NO.827 OF 2011 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 3 TO 12 : 1. SAFDAR HASHMI, S/O.SALIM, VAYALIRAKKATHU VEEDU, THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SYAM LAL, S/O.KUNJU KRISHNAN, PAVOOR CHARUVILA VEEDU, MANJAPPARA, KOTTUKKAL VILAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT 3. MAHESH, S/O.SHAJAHAN, MAHESH BHAVAN, NETTAYAM MURI, NEDIYARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. SANAL KUMAR, S/O.KUMAR, LAKSHAM VEEDU, KURIYODE, CHADAYAMANGALAM,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. VISHNULAL, S/O.CHANDRA BABU, SREE BHAVAN, KUTTIKKADU, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT 6. SUBIN, S/O.NASEER, SAMSAM MANZIL, THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT 7. RAHUL, S/O.RAMESAN, MANAYIL VEEDU, THADIKKADU P.O.,ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. PRAVEEN RAJ, S/O.PRASANNAN, PRAVEENRAJ BHAVAN, KOTTUKKAL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. 9. SARATH KUMAR, S/O.SASIDHRAN PILLAI, KAILAS BHAVAN, PANAYAMCHERY, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 10. JISHNU RAJ, S/O.RADHAMANI, R.R.C.BHAVAN, THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 11. SUDHI, S/O.SURENDRAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAMULAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. SIJU KAMALASANAN SRI.S.ABHILASH RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANCHAL POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 8231 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused No.1 and 3 to 12 in Crime No.827 of 2011 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 452 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 19.8.2011 at 3.15 P.M., the de facto complainant and several other students were attacked by the accused persons with dangerous weapons and they sustained injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged incident was the result of a clash between students. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused No.1 is BAIL APPL. NO. 8231 OF 2011 :: 2 :: not a student and he is involved in several other crimes. 6. I have gone through the case diary. The allegation is that the victims were not attacked while they were in the college, but after they returned from the college and entered into the office of a political party. It is stated that the de facto complainant and others were attacked since they did not participate in the strike called by a students' organisation. 7. 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 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 ahz/