IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3252 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRMP.1840/2010 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA ........................................... (CRIME No.215/10 OF KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT) ........................................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. BABY SCARIA @ BIBY ANCHANI, S/O.SCARIA, AGED 39 YEARS, ANCHANICKAL HOUSE, KANCHIYAR KARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 2. JOY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS, EETTAKKUNNEL HOUSE, KOZHIMALA P.O., AMBALAMEDU KARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 3. RAJU.V.K., S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, VADAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOZHIMALA P.O., KANCHIYAR KARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 4. MOHANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 48 YEARS, MATTAKUTTATHIL HOUSE, AYYAPPANKOVIL P.O., KANCHIYAR KARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.215/2010, OF KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTICT.) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3252 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 353, 341, 294(b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 13.04.2010 at about 8.30 A.M., while the de facto complainant and his team of Forest Officials were on patrol duty, they found petitioners engaged in unauthorised collection of sand from a reservoir. The forest officials asked petitioners to stop the act, while petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained de facto complainant, assaulted him and cause obstruction to the official duty. They also insulted de facto complainant by abusing filthy language in public. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that first petitioner is a contractor and he had permission from the Panchayath to remove sand. He had bid the right to remove sand in an auction conducted by the Panchayath. The sand was removed in the presence of the Panchayath officials also and it is not correct to say that petitioners illegally removed of sand. The allegations made against petitioners are absolutely false. It is also pointed out that as per the prosecution case 60 persons were involved in the commission of offence. B.A. No. 3252 of 2010 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that according to prosecution, petitioners were found removing sand from a portion of a reserve forest lying in the Wild Life Sanctuary and Forest Officials asked petitioners to stop the act. Instead of stopping it, all petitioners assaulted de facto complainant, and committed the various offences. Even if petitioners had any licence to collect the sand, the acts committed by the petitioners cannot be justified, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that even if the entire submissions made by petitioners counsel is accepted and petitioners had the right to collect the sand, they cannot claim any licence to assault the officials. On considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bai, especially in the absence of anything to probabalise the plea of innocence. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln