IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 632 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.71/2010 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NOS.1, 6, 4, 5 AND 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KUTTAN @ SAJEESH S/O. SASIDHARAN, MANGALASSERI VEEDU, MELVETTOOR,VETTOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA. 2. ALSHAM, S/O. MAZOOD, V.V. HOUSE, VILABHAGAM, VETTOOR VILLAGE. 3. SADEER, S/O.SHAJAHAN, JASMI MANZIL, MELVETTOOR P.O., VARKALA. 4. RIYAD, S/O. ABDUL MANAF, RIYANA MANZIL, MELVETTOOR P.O., VETTOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.632 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 6, 4 and 5 respectively in Crime No.71 of 2010 of Varkala Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 447, 323, 379, 506 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant runs a soap factory in a rented building. On 16.1.2010, at 2 P.M., the de facto complainant saw six persons engaged in consuming alcohol near a silica tank inside the premises of the soap factory. The de facto complainant questioned the acts of the accused and stated that it was not possible for them to consume alcohol in the factory premises. At that time, the accused persons pushed him and assaulted him. The de facto complainant fell down. At that time, the accused persons committed theft of the mobile phone belonging to the BA No.632/2010 2 de facto complainant. It is alleged that the accused persons entered into the factory building and destroyed the soap cutting table inside the factory. It is also alleged that the accused persons urinated into the tank in which the silica solution was kept. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl