IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8695 of 2011 CRIME NO.395 OF 2011 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PETITIONERS: ACCUSED : -------------------- 1. RATEESH, S/O.RAVI, AGED 28 CHETTIKKATTIL, MALAYATOOR, MANAPPATTUCHIRA. 2. SATEESH KUMAR K.V, S/O.VIKRAMAN NAIR, AGED 29 KOTTAKKAL PUTHENVEEDU, MALAYATOOR, KADAPPARA. 3. REMALDEV. R., S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 19, KARIKKOTHAN, MALAYATOOR, KADAPPARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 8695 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 O R D E R The petitioners apprehend arrest in Crime No.395 of 2011 of Kollam West Police Station. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the third petitioner (Remaldev.R.) is not an accused in the case and, therefore, the Bail Application is not pressed in so far as he is concerned. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 366A, 373 and 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the victim girl, aged 16 years, was sexually abused by several persons. At first, the girl was taken by Noushad and at his instance the girl was made available to several persons including the petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation of BAIL APPL. NO. 8695 OF 2011 :: 2 :: the case was made over to CBCID on 29.10.2011 and that the investigation is in progress. Some of the accused were arrested. It is submitted that petitioners 1 and 2 are accused Nos.9 and 10 in the crime. 5. 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 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/