High Court Kerala High Court

Abinesh.M vs The Station House Officer on 1 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Abinesh.M vs The Station House Officer on 1 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 1045 of 2010()


1. ABINESH.M, S/O.ASHOKAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SIJEESH, S/O.SASIDHARAN,

                        Vs



1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :01/03/2010

 O R D E R
                       K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                     ---------------------------
                     B.A. No. 1045 of 2010
                 ------------------------------------
               Dated this the 1st 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 petitioners are accused

Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.58/2010 of Chokli Police Station,

Kannur.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under

Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

3. The prosecution case is the following:

Renovation work of Moozhikkara Juma Masjid was over and

it was scheduled to be inaugurated on 20.01.2010. Decoration

works were going on. On 17.01.2010, when the de facto

complainant and his friends were engaged in the decoration

works, the accused persons, three in number, came on a motor

bike belonging to the first accused and hurled a country made

bomb towards the de facto complainant. The bomb exploded.

However, nobody sustained any injuries.

4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are grave

in nature. It is stated that the political clashes were going on in

B.A. No. 1045/2010 2

the place between CPI(M) and NDF workers. Whatever may be

the dispute, throwing a county bomb towards a place of worship

is a heinous crime.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the

petitioners are involved in several other cases.

5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations

levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit

case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.

The petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory

bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the

proper investigation of the case.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

ln