IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9341 of 2011 CRIME NO.463 OF 2011 OF PULIKEEZU POLICE STATION. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1,2. ---------------------------------------------- 1. CHINU T.S, AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.SASI, THAIPARAMBIL, VALLANJAVATTOM, KADAPRA VILLAGE. 2. CHINNU T.S, AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.SASI, THAIPARAMBIL, VALLANJAVATTOM, KADAPRA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY SMT.LIJI KUTTAPPAN RESPONDENTS:STATE AND COMPLAINANT. ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIKEEZU POLICE STATION-686 649. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO.9341 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners filed B.A.No.8213 of 2011 for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That Bail Application was dismissed by the order dated 9.11.2011, which reads thus: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.463 of 2011 of Pulikeezhu Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 09/09/2011 at 10.30 P.M., the accused attacked the de facto complainant with dangerous weapons and also hit on the right eye of the de facto complainant. He sustained serious injuries. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. BAIL APPL. NO. 9341 OF2011 :: 2 :: 5. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are grave in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.” The present Bail Application is also for the same relief which was claimed in B.A.No.8213 of 2011. The present Bail Application was filed on 10.11.2011, the next day on which B.A.No.8213 of 2011 was dismissed. I do not find any reason why the petitioners should indulge in such adventures. The Bail Application is bereft of any merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/