IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8500 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 479/2011 OF KUTTIADI POLICE STATION KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : --------------------- 1. PRATHEESH, S/O.KANARAN, AGED 29 YEARS, VALLYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, KUTTIADI AMSOM DESOM, OORATH, VADAKARA TALUK. 2. PRASANTH P., S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, AGED 25 YEARS, PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE, KUTTIADI AMSOM DESOM, OORATH, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, KUTTIADI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.8500 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th 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.4 and 8 in Crime No.479 of 2011 of Kuttiadi Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 153-A and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 22/08/2011, while the de facto complainant and his friend were returning from School after getting the certificate, they were intercepted by the accused persons. The de facto complainant was asked to state his name. On finding that the de facto complainant and his friend are Muslims, the accused persons manhandled them. The accused stated that the Muslims would not be allowed to live in the locality. The de facto complainant and his friend were admitted in the hospital and later they were referred to the Medical College Hospital. Bail Appln.No.8500/2011 : 2 : 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious 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. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj