IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5758 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.586/2011 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. IBRAHIM KHALEEL,S/O.ABDUL REHIMAN, CHATTAMCHAL,KANIYADKA HOUSE,THEKKIL PO, KASARAGOD (A1). 2. ABDUL KADER,S/O.ABDULLAKUNHI, ATTIYATTI MOOLA HOUSE,MALLAM PO,KASARGOD(A2). 3. DISHAD,S/O.KUNHAM HAJI PADINHAR PO, THALANGARA,KASARGOD(A5) BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARGOD POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.5758 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.5, 2 and 1 respectively in Crime No.586 of 2011 of Kasaragod Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 342 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following : On 24.5.2011, accused No.2 took the de facto complainant to a house. Accused Nos.3 to 5 confined the de facto complainant in that house. The de facto complainant was compelled to pose with a lady and their photographs were taken. The de facto complainant was threatened that the photograph would be publicised. Putting the de facto complainant under fear and threat, he was forced to part with title deeds in respect of some transactions and he was compelled to put his signature in some blank papers. BA 5758/2011 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in respect of the incident which allegedly took place on 24.5.2011, the F.I. statement was given only on 28.6.2011 and this itself would cast a doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that delay by itself may not be sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that accused No.1 is involved in three theft cases and one rape case. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted in favour of the petitioners. The allegations levelled against them are grave in nature. Detailed investigation is required. 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 do not think that the discretionary relief under Section 438 Crl.P.C. can be granted. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl