IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1523 of 2010 CRIME NO.122 OF 2010 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. BABU SUMESH,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN NAIR. N.V,EDAPUZHA-KUVATTI, P.O.CHAIYOTH, (VIA)NILESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 314. 2. N.V.KANNAN NAIR,AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.UKKARAN NAIR,EDAPUZHA-KUVATTI, P.O.CHAIYOTH, (VIA)NILESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 314. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1523 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd 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.122 of 2010 of Nileshwar Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 447, 353, 506(ii) and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant is the Village Officer of Kinanur Village of Hosdurg Taluk. It is alleged that the excess land taken possession of from K.J.Thomas was being managed by persons who were entrusted with the management. It is stated in the First Information Statement that the second petitioner was putting forward a claim in respect of a particular portion of land and he was making obstruction to taking usufructus from the same. The Village Officer came to the place and she was obstructed by the petitioners. B.A. NO. 1523 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the second petitioner had obtained possession of an extent of 3 acres and 57.75 cents of land covered by document Nos.1355 and 1356 of the year 1970. As per these documents, the father of the second petitioner had title and possession to the properties. He also claims title to an extent of 95 cents of land as per two sale deeds executed in 1972 and 1981. It is also stated that as per the decree in O.S.No.96 of 1981, Sub Court, Kasaragod, the property involved therein was delivered to the second petitioner. 5. There was a ceiling case before the Taluk Land Board, Hosdurg as TLB.No.1626 of 1973. The second petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Taluk Land Board rejected the claim petition holding that the second petitioner herein had not proved that the land claimed by him was not part of the excess land. The order passed by the Taluk Land Board was challenged in C.R.P.No.963 of 2003. The Civil Revision Petition was allowed as per the order dated 8.2.2008. In the order dated 8.2.2008, it was held thus: B.A. NO. 1523 OF 2010 :: 3 :: “7. The authorised officer having reported that the claim petitioner has title to an extent of 3.57¾ acres of land, the matter to be enquired into by the Taluk Land Board is whether the petitioner has established title and whether that extent of land takes in any portion of land ordered to be surrendered or which was taken possession of as excess land. If it is found that any portion of the land which was taken possession of as excess land is included in the portion of land possessed by the claim petitioner and that the claim petitioner has title to that land, certainly the Taluk Land Board should allow the claim petition and delete that much extent of land from the account of the declarant. In the case on hand, the Taluk Land Board has not arrived at any clear finding as to whether the claim petitioner has title to the extent of 3.57 ¾ acres of land and whether he has title to the portion of the land which was taken possession of as if it belonged to the declarant. The crucial question to be decided in the claim petition having not been decided by the Taluk Land Board, I have no other alternative but to set aside the order passed by the Taluk Land Board and to remand the matter to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal of the case in accordance with law. B.A. NO. 1523 OF 2010 :: 4 :: For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order passed by the Taluk Land Board is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Taluk Land Board for fresh disposal of the claim petition in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this order. The Taluk Land Board shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs.” 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Taluk Land Board has not disposed of the matter so far and the claim petition is pending before the Taluk Land Board. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. 8. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. NO. 1523 OF 2010 :: 5 :: a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/