IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2013 of 2010()
1. BINOY SEBASTIAN,
... Petitioner
2. MANOJ ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM,
3. PRAKASAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY,
4. MANU, S/O.HELIN, KALLUVELIKKAL HOUSE,
5. SABU @ JINS, S/O.CHACKO,
6. MANOJ, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 30 YEARS,
7. RAJ MOHAN, S/O.KORAPPAN, AGED 36 YEARS,
8. JOBY, S/O.JOSE, AGED 34 YEARS,
9. JOSE, CHITTEKKAD, KAKKADAMPOYIL.
10. SHINOJ, S/O.JOSEPH,
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :28/05/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2013 of 2010
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this 28th day of May, 2010.
ORDER
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 332.
204(b) and 323 read with 149 IPC. According to prosecution, one
Sumitha was missing and a case was registered as “woman
missing”. The police party took Sumitha into custody. While police
party was proceeding with Sumitha, the vehicle was intercepted by
15 persons, who include petitioners, who came in three vehicles
and they assaulted the police constables and forcibly rescued
Sumitha.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a second
application for anticipatory bail. In the order passed by this court in
the earlier application for anticipatory bail dated 24.2.1010 in B.A.
No.1000/2010, this Court found that if petitioners are granted
anticipatory bail it will adversely affect investigation. It was also
found that the allegations made against petitioners are grievous in
[B.A.No.2013/2010] 2
nature and they have obstructed discharge of official duty by the
police and the court expressed the view that accused nos. 1 to 10
are not entitled to discretionary relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I do
not find any reason to come to a different finding. There is no
change of circumstance. Petitioners have not surrendered either
before the police or before the Magistrate Court so far. The
investigation is in a stand still. I am fully satisfied that this is not a
fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Accused nos. 1 to 10 are bound
to co-operate with the investigation.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that first petitioner
is not an accused in the crime. This submission is recorded.
Hence, there will not be any apprehension of arrest of first
petitioner and he cannot be granted anticipatory bail
Petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Krs.