IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 414 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.1/2010 OF RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ DAYAL, S/O.VIJAYAN, VADAKEDATH HOUSE, RANNI-VAIKOM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE ---------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNI, THROUGH- THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.414 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.6 in Crime No.1 of 2010 of Ranni Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 333 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 31.12.2009, during midnight, several persons were celebrating new year. The Sub Inspector of Police was on duty at a place called Kuthukallinkalpady. He heard some persons uttering obscene words and creating a law and order situation. The Sub Inspector of Police directed those people to stop the same. Those persons did not obey. The Sub Inspector of Police informed the Circle Inspector of Police about the development. The Circle Inspector of Police, on getting information from the Sub Inspector of Police, rushed to the spot. On the Circle Inspector reaching the spot, accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked him. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 were known to the Circle Inspector of BA No.414/2010 2 Police earlier. The Circle Inspector of Police had booked a case against them on an earlier occasion. Accused Nos.1 and 2, taking advantage of the situation, attacked the Circle Inspector of Police. They shouted to kill him. Obeying the words of accused Nos.1 and 2, the other accused persons pelted stones against the police personnel. Several policemen sustained injuries. The Circle Inspector of Police sustained very serious injuries. He was taken to Marthomma Hospital. Later, he was taken to Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Circle Inspector of Police was in the Intensive Care Unit for 13 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he could not resume to his duties for quite a long period, as a result of the injuries sustained by him. The injuries sustained by the Circle Inspector of Police included an injury of fracture of the skull. The offences alleged against the petitioner are grave in nature. The allegation is that the accused persons not only did not obey the lawful directions issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, but they also attacked the Circle Inspector of Police who came to the spot. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were involved in other offences. On BA No.414/2010 3 their request, the other accused also indulged in the criminal activities to attack the police personnel who were discharging their official duties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner is arrested by the police, the petitioner is sure that he would be manhandled, harassed and humiliated by the police. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this apprehension is out of place and that no accused, who were arrested earlier in point of time, had occasion to state before the Magistrate concerned that any of them was manhandled, harassed or humiliated by the police while the accused concerned was in custody of the police. The learned Public Prosecutor also stated that from 1.1.2010 onwards, the petitioner is making himself scarce and even though some other accused persons were arrested, the petitioner could not be arrested. 7. 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 to the petitioner. The offences alleged against BA No.414/2010 4 the petitioner and the other accused persons are serious in nature. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Moreover, in a case of this nature, I am of the view that the accused is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only because he could manage to be out of the reach of the police for several days. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that if arrested, he would be manhandled, harassed and humiliated by the police. I record the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigating officer would not make room for any allegation that the petitioner was manhandled. I do not find any ground to allow the Bail Application. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl