IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5800 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.629/2009 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A1 TO A4 ---------------------------------------- 1. SHIBU, AGED 28, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O. 2. KANNAN, AGED 21, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O. 3. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 24, S/O.SISUPALAN, MUTHUKUNNATHUMELIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O. 4. SHIBU, AGED 23, S/O.SUKUMARAN, IYANIYARATHALA, KIZHAKKUMKARA VEEDU, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5800 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the petitioners, they are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.629 of 2009 of Neyyattinkara Police Station. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the address of petitioners No.1 and 2 furnished in the Bail application is incomplete. However, he submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 are Shibu and Kannan. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that accused Nos.3 and 4 are to be identified and at present, it cannot be said that whether Anil Kumar and Shibu (petitioners No.3 and 4) would be made as accused Nos.3 and 4 in the case. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. BA No.5800/2009 2 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant and other circumstances, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the smooth and proper investigation of the case. In the nature of the allegations, custodial interrogation may be required for the purpose of investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl