IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9347 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.191/2011 OF MANNANJERI POLICE STATION ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER/ACCUSED : -------------------------------------- S.THOUFEEQ, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ALIYA SALIM, RESIDING AT THASLEEM MANZIL, PONNAD P.O., MANNANJERI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM SMT.NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S. RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNANJERI POLICE STATION, MANNANJERI, ALAPPUZHA-688001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION, MARARIKULAM, ALAPPUZHA-688001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No. 9347 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November , 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.7 in Crime No.191 of 2011 of Mannanjeri Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 15 of the Environmental Protection Act and Section 121 of the Kerala Police Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 13.5.2011, while a cricket match was going on, dispute arose between two groups of persons resulting in a B.A.No. 9347 OF 2011 2 scuffle. However, the matters were settled between the two groups. Thereafter, while the deceased, who was a member of one group, entered into the stadium to search for his lost mobile phone, he was attacked by the accused persons with cricket bats and stumps. He succumbed to the injuries on 14.5.2011. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, 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. cms