IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3750 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.484/2010 OF KOZHIKODE RURAL POLICE DISTRICT (S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 4 ------------------------------------------------ 1. SANKARAN, S/O.KUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, PONNARATHUMMAL, CHANIYAM KADAVU POST, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. SREEDHARAN, S/O.KUTTY, AGED 39 YEARS, PONNARATHUMMAL, CHANIYAM KADAVU POST, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (IN CRIME NO.484 OF 2010 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3750 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 23rd June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147 and 353 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners(A1 to A4), along with other accused formed into an unlawful assembly and deterred the Police Officer( defacto complainant ) from discharging his official duty by attempting to prevent the arrest of a person who was engaged in gambling in the temple compound, where there was a festigal. The police, on finding that if an attempt is made to arrest the persons who deterred the police from discharging their duty, it will create problems in the locality and hence, they were dispersed from the place and the gambler was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that defacto complainant wanted to arrest a person who was engaged in gambling and petitioners did not resist arrest. As per the F.I. Statement itself, it is clear that he was arrested. It is also pointed out that as per F.I. Statement, petitioners were dispersed by the BA NO. 3750/10 2 police party and they ran away. Therefore, no offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is involved, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that only because the police dispersed the offenders, it cannot be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through Annexure I F.I. Statement, it appears that as per the allegations, petitioners caused obstruction, while defacto complainant tried to arrest a person who was engaged in gambling and thereby they committed the various offences. It also appears that apprehending some untoward incident to occur, he did not arrest petitioners, but instead dispersed them. The allegations made in the F.I. Statement are serious in nature. I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs