IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2013 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.44/2010 OF THIRUVAMBADY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE) : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. BINOY SEBASTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN, PALLATH VEEDU, KAKKADAMPOYIL. 2. MANOJ ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM, VALAMANNIL HOUSE, KOODARANHI P.O. 3. PRAKASAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, AGED 30 YEARS, KUNNUVAZHA PURATH, KAKKADAMPOYIL. 4. MANU, S/O.HELIN, KALLUVELIKKAL HOUSE, KAKKADAM POYIL. 5. SABU @ JINS, S/O.CHACKO, KOCHUVELIKKAKATH HOUSE, KAKKADAMPOYIL. 6. MANOJ, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 30 YEARS, PALLIYAL, KAKKADAMPOYIL. 7. RAJ MOHAN, S/O.KORAPPAN, AGED 36 YEARS, CHERUKATTIL HOUSE, KOOMPARA BAZAR, KOZHIKODE. 8. JOBY, S/O.JOSE, AGED 34 YEARS, ELAMTHUIRATHIYIL, KAKKADAMPOYIL. 9. JOSE, CHITTEKKAD, KAKKADAMPOYIL. 10. SHINOJ, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 31 YEARS, VADAKKEKOOTT P.O., KAKKADAM POYIL. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVAMBADY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.. 2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 2013 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of May, 2010. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 332. 204(b) and 323 read with 149 IPC. According to prosecution, one Sumitha was missing and a case was registered as “woman missing”. The police party took Sumitha into custody. While police party was proceeding with Sumitha, the vehicle was intercepted by 15 persons, who include petitioners, who came in three vehicles and they assaulted the police constables and forcibly rescued Sumitha. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a second application for anticipatory bail. In the order passed by this court in the earlier application for anticipatory bail dated 24.2.1010 in B.A. No.1000/2010, this Court found that if petitioners are granted anticipatory bail it will adversely affect investigation. It was also found that the allegations made against petitioners are grievous in [B.A.No.2013/2010] 2 nature and they have obstructed discharge of official duty by the police and the court expressed the view that accused nos. 1 to 10 are not entitled to discretionary relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I do not find any reason to come to a different finding. There is no change of circumstance. Petitioners have not surrendered either before the police or before the Magistrate Court so far. The investigation is in a stand still. I am fully satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Accused nos. 1 to 10 are bound to co-operate with the investigation. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that first petitioner is not an accused in the crime. This submission is recorded. Hence, there will not be any apprehension of arrest of first petitioner and he cannot be granted anticipatory bail Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.