IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5589 of 2011 -------------------------------------- [CRIME NO.121/11 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION – KASARAGOD DISTRICT] ................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NUMBERS 3,6,7 & 8 RESPECTIVELY: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ISUBU ZEEYAD @ ZIYAD @ ZIYA,AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.BADUVAN KUNHI,AMBIKANA HOUSE,PAIVALIKE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. MUNEER,AGED 22 YEARS,S/O.MOIDEEN, PANDIYADKAM HOUSE,BAYIKKATTA,PAIVALIKE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. NOORSHA,AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.HASAINAR, MASIKUMERI HOUSE,LALBAG,PAIVALIKE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. SUBAIR @ JOOBI,AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI,KANDATHADA HOUSE,PAIVALIKE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I.OF POLICE-MANJESWAR POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. TEKCHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.5589 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioners are the accused Nos.3, 6, 7 and 8 in Crime No.121 of 2011 of the Manjeshwar Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 343, 368, 342, 323 and 354 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 5.2.2011 at 7 P.M., the defacto complainant, his wife and child were waiting in front of the Kasaragod Railway Station. They wanted to visit a Durga and to visit the sister of the defacto complainant. At that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 came there in a car and offered a lift to the defacto complainant and his family. They were taken in the car and at the place where they had to B.A. No.5589 OF 2011 2 alight to meet the sister of the defacto complainant, the accused did not stop the car. The accused took the defacto complainant and the family to a nearby ground where the other accused also joined. The further allegation is that the defacto complainant's wife was compelled to dial a particular number in her mobile phone. She refused to do so. Thereafter, the defacto complainant, his wife and child were abducted and they were taken to a building and they were wrongfully restrained there till 11 A.M. on 6.2.2011. It is also alleged that the accused outraged the modesty of the wife of the defacto complainant. 4. Very serious allegations are levelled against the accused. The matter requires detailed investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. In a case of this nature, I am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms