IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8785 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.842/2011 OF MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION PALAKKAD DISTRICT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 : ---------------------------- 1. UNNIKKAMMU,AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.ABDUL REHIMAN KALLADI NEELANCHERRI,PALLIKURUP,MANNARKKAD PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMED RIYASUDEEN,AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL REHIMAN,KALLADI NEELANCHERI,PALLIKURUP, MANNARKKAD,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. MOHAMMED ARIF,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SAIDALAVI,MADANJODI VEEDU,PALLIKURUP, MANNARKKAD,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.842/2011. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.8785 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.842 of 2011 of Mannarkkad Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 13/10/2011 at about 10 P.M., while the de facto complainant was returning from the house of his paternal uncle, he was attacked by the accused persons with iron rods. When the de facto complainant fell down, the accused had beaten him with iron rods in various parts of his body. The victim could not stand up. He cried aloud. His paternal uncle and others came to the scene of occurrence. The victim was taken to the hospital. He underwent surgery as he had sustained fracture on the leg. Bail Appln.No.8785/2011 : 2 : 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the F.I. Statement was recorded on 15/10/2011 and the delay is not explained. The victim was taken to the hospital immediately after the incident and he underwent a surgery. On an intimation from the hospital, the police went to the hospital and recorded the statement. No conclusive finding on the contention of the petitioners is necessary at this stage, since it is a matter to be considered at the time of trial. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Crime No.843 of 2011 was registered at the instance of the second petitioner herein against the de facto complainant in the present case for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. I have also perused a copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No.843 of 2011 of Mannarkkad Police Station. 6. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are very grave in nature. The victim sustained grievous hurt. He underwent a surgery. The allegation is that the accused used dangerous weapons for committing the crime. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. Bail Appln.No.8785/2011 : 3 : If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. 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. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj