High Court Kerala High Court

Kuttan @ Sajeesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Kuttan @ Sajeesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 632 of 2010()


1. KUTTAN @ SAJEESH
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ALSHAM,
3. SADEER,
4. RIYAD,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :11/02/2010

 O R D E R
                        K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                  ---------------------------------------------
                        B.A.No.632 of 2010
                  ---------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010


                               ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are

accused Nos.1, 6, 4 and 5 respectively in Crime No.71 of 2010

of Varkala Police Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under

Sections 143, 147, 149, 447, 323, 379, 506 and 452 of the Indian

Penal Code.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The

de facto complainant runs a soap factory in a rented building.

On 16.1.2010, at 2 P.M., the de facto complainant saw six

persons engaged in consuming alcohol near a silica tank inside

the premises of the soap factory. The de facto complainant

questioned the acts of the accused and stated that it was not

possible for them to consume alcohol in the factory premises. At

that time, the accused persons pushed him and assaulted him.

The de facto complainant fell down. At that time, the accused

persons committed theft of the mobile phone belonging to the

BA No.632/2010 2

de facto complainant. It is alleged that the accused persons

entered into the factory building and destroyed the soap cutting

table inside the factory. It is also alleged that the accused

persons urinated into the tank in which the silica solution was

kept.

4. 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
csl