IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8453 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1273/2011 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------- MANIKUTTAN, S/O. KUNJUKRISHNAN, GOURI SANKARAM,THOTTAVARM KUZHYILMUKKU ATTINGAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.8453 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011 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.1273 of 2011 of Attingal Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 & 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that in violation of the protection order passed by the court under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, on 26/08/2011, the petitioner abused the de facto complainant, caught hold of her neck and pushed her against the wall. Thereafter the de facto complainant was pushed down and the petitioner stamped her. The petitioner threatened to kill her by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze. 4. By the order dated 29th September, 2011, the learned Sessions Judge declined anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Bail Appln.No.8453/2011 : 2 : 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Annexure-A2 petition filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, in which the serious allegations have been made against the de facto complainant, one police officer and one Biju. The learned Public Prosecutor, on written instructions, submitted that those allegations were found to be false. 6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, 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