IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 311 of 2010(B ) CRIME NO.574 OF 2009 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1,2,5 TO 8, 12, 13, 14, 16,17 & 3 ---------------------------------------------- 1. BINOY.P.V, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.M.V.BALAN, MEETHALE VEETIL, ELAMBA,ULIYIL.P.O, KANNUR. 2. JITHESH CHANDROTH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.RAVI, CHANDROTH HOUSE,ELAMBA, ULIYIL.P.O, KANNUR. 3. VINOD.E, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KUNJIRAMAN, ELAMBAYIL HOUSE, ELAMBA, ULIYIL.P.O, KANNUR. 4. PRAMOD.M, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.NANU,MADAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, ELAMBA, ULIYIL.P.O, KANNUR. 5. SHAJI.M., AGED 31 YEARS,S/O.RAMUNNI, MADAPPURACKAL HOUSE, ELAMBA, ULIYIL.P.O, KANNUR. 6. PRAKASAN CHANDROTH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.BALAN,ELAMBAYIL HOUSE, ELAMBA, ULIYIL.P.O, KANNUR. 7. VINODKUMAR.V, AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.BALAN, ELAMBAYIL HOUSE, ELAMBA, ULIYIL.P.O, KANNUR. 8. SANEESH VACHAKKAL, AGED 25 YEARS, VACHAKKAL HOUSE, KALATHODE,NADUVANAD.P.O, S/O.SADANANDAN. 9. PRABEESH MEPPADAN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ANANTHAN, MELEDATH HOUSE, ELAMBA, ULIYIL.P.O, KANNUR. 10. PRABHAKARAN.K, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, MAVILE VEEDU, ELAMBA, ULIYIL.P.O, KANNUR. 11. RAJAN MURIKKANCHERI, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, PUTHIYA VEEDU, ELAMBA, ULIYIL.P.O, KANNUR. 12. BYJU MELEKANDI, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, ELAMKAYIL HOUSE, ELAMBA, ULIYIL.P.O, KANNUR. 13. K.P.SADANANDAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, KATTILEPURAYIL HOUSE, ELAMBA, ULIYIL.P.O, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSOECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.V.G.GOVINDAN NAIR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON 08/03/2010, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 311 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th 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. 1,2,5 to 8, 12 to 14, 16, 17 and 3 in Crime No.574 of 2009 of Mattannur Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 143, 145, 147, 225-B, and 353 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The FIR was registered suo motu by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mattannur. The prosecution case is the following: The Sub Inspector of Police and party were on patrol duty on 20-12-2009. The Sub Inspector of Police got information that clashes were going on at Elamba, Vattakkayam and nearby places between workers of NDF and CPI(M). When the Sub Inspector of police and party reached near Vattakkayam Yuvadhara Arts and Sports Club, at B.A. NO. 311 OF 2010 :: 2 :: about 5.20 P.M., they saw six persons beating up one person. On seeing the police party, the assailants tried to escape. However, the police could apprehend Rahul and Baiju. The police found that due to the attack by the assailants, one Ajmal had sustained injuries. The injured person was sent to the police station in a vehicle. The police party took the two apprehended assailants in the police jeep. While the police party reached Elamba bus stop, about 40 persons who belong to C.P.I.(M), intercepted the jeep, shouted slogans and obstructed the police from moving forward. They tried to rescue Rahul and Baiju from police custody. The Sub Inspector of Police told them that they had unlawfully assembled and their acts were illegal. At that time, the aforesaid 40 persons unlawfully restrained the police personnel, forcibly obstructed them from discharging their official duties and unlawfully rescued Rahul and Baiju from police custody. Since the number of police personnel were less, they could not prevent the illegal acts of the offenders. 4. In the First Information Statement, names of 15 of the accused are mentioned. It is also stated that about 25 other persons are also involved in the offence. B.A. NO. 311 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 5. Offences of this nature are serious. It would not only affect the process of detection of offence and arrest of the offenders by the law enforcing agencies, but would also affect the morale of the police officers. If workers and sympathisers of political parties are allowed to take law into their own hands, it would affect the rule of law. If instances of rescuing arrested persons from the custody of police and obstructing the police from discharging their official duties take place in large scale, according to whims and fancies of workers of political parties, a situation would arise where the police would hesitate to arrest the members and sympathisers of those political parties. It would really affect the rule of law. People would not get justice. They would be afraid of the workers of those political parties. That results in negation of justice. If such instances are allowed to recur, a sense of insecurity would occur in the minds of the law abiding people and law enforcing agencies. 6. When the court took a serious view in the matter during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor requested for time to enable the Director General of Prosecution to appear in the case. Accordingly, Sri.V.G.Govindan Nair, the learned Director General of Prosecution B.A. NO. 311 OF 2010 :: 4 :: appeared in the case. He submitted that the Government would take serious steps to prevent recurrence of such instances. “We can’t spare anybody who violates law”, submitted the learned Director General of Prosecution. The learned Director General of Prosecution also submitted that when such instances came to his notice, strict instructions were given to the concerned. The submissions made by the learned Director General of Prosecution are recorded. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the offence, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. 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 ahz/