IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 8054 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 82/2008 OF ALAKODE POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. K.P. SABU, S/O. PARAMESWARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, KUNNAPPALLIL HOUSE, ARANGAM, ALAKODE P.O TALIPARMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. P.R. NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O. RAMAN, AGED 57 YEARS, PUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, KAVUMKUDI, VELLAD P.O., ALAKODE VIA, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. SANDEEP, S/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 22 YEARS, POTHERA HOUSE, PANAMKUTTI, CHITTADI P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. P.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 43 YEARS, PALANGADAN HOUSE, ELAYADU THIMIRI P.O., CHAPPARAPPADAVU, TALIPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.A.SATHEESH, MR.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALAKODE POLICE STATION, KANNUR DIST. REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------- B.A. No.8054 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 448, 342, 353, 294(b), 323, 427 read with 149 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, on 29.02.2008 petitioners, who are workers of CPI(M) trespassed into the Panchayath office and assaulted the defacto complainant, who is the President of the Panchayath and committed the various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the only non bailable offence is 353 I.P.C. But President of a Panchayath cannot be treated as a public servant as per law. Therefore, offence under Section 353 will not be applicable in this case and all other offences are bailable. It is also submitted that no injury is sustained by the defacto complainant even admittedly, and the only person, who allegedly beat the defacto complainant is the fourth petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the question whether the defacto complainant is a public servant or not, is B.A.No.8054 of 2008 2 an arguable point and if it is accepted, all the other offences are bailable and hence, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Hence, petitioners may be directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned and seek remedy as per law in the ordinary course. On hearing both sides and on the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, petitioners may surrender and seek remedy before the Magistrate court concerned and if an application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. is filed, the mooted issue whether the defacto complainant is a public servant or not, will be considered and an order will be passed on merit in accordance with law. I am not therefore, making any observation on the disputed question and the following order is passed : Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and in case, bail application with previous notice to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is filed under Section 437 B.A.No.8054 of 2008 3 Cr.P.C., it shall be disposed of on merit by the learned Magistrate as expeditiously as possible. The petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac