IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6174 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRMP.266/2011 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO.157/2011 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 2 & 3 --------------------------------- 1. ROY JOSE, S/O.JOSE, AGED 36 YEARS, PUTHUVELIL KOTTUTHODU, THIRUVALLA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. JAMES LASAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.LASER, THEKKEKKOOTTU VEEDU, THIRUMOOLAPURAM, THOLASSERY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. ANEESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.FRANCIS, VADAKKEL HOUSE, THIRUMOOLAPURAM, THOLASSERY, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6174 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 08th 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.1 to 3 in Crime No.157 of 2011 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 02/02/2011 at 5.40 P.M., the accused Nos.1 to 3 forcibly entered into the shop of de facto complainant and attacked him. It is also alleged that the other accused persons later came to the shop on the instructions of accused No.3 and they attacked the de facto complainant with iron rod resulting in fracture of the bone on his right leg. 4. 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 Bail Appln.No.6174/2011 : 2 : 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 skj