IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6916 of 2008() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.252/2008 OF KELAKAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S) --------------------- 1. LISSY JOSEPH,ERAYIL HOUSE,PRESIDENT, KELAKAM PANCHAYAT,KELAKAM AMSOM, DESOM. 2. MELEKUTT SIMON,MEMBER, KELAKAM PANCHAYAT,KELAKAM AMSOM, DESOM. 3. SARAMMA, KUZHIVELIL HOUSE, VELLUNNI, KELAKAM AMSOM DESOM. 4. THOMAS ELAPRA, S/O.SCAIRA, KELAKAM AMSOM DESOM. 5. S.T.GEORGE, SAURIYAN THOTTIYIL, VELLUNNI,KELAKAM AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER KELAKAM POLICE STATION, KELAKAM, KANNUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.6916 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 448 and 171- C of IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. According to prosecution, Form 6B register and ballot papers were destroyed by petitioners and others. Petitioners are accused nos.1 to 5. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the allegations made against petitioners are absolutely false. A writ petition was filed by fourth petitioner and another accused before another bench of this court and as per order dated 28.10.2008 vide Annexure IV, the disputes between the parties were looked into and the order will show that there was no allegation that Form 6B register was destroyed by petitioners or any other person. Therefore, this is a false case, which was fabricated after disposal of the writ petition, alleging that petitioners and others committed the offences on 22.10.2008, prior to the disposal of the writ petition. It is also B.A.No.6916 of 2008 2 submitted that in the F.I. Statement, names of the petitioners were not mentioned. But it is only alleged that a “group of persons” committed the offences. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is clear evidence to show that petitioners committed various offences on 22.10.2008. The fact whether the register was destroyed or not, was not a matter of consideration in the writ petition. Only because of the omission in the order in writ petition, as pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner, it may not be proper to come to a conclusion that no offence was committed, as alleged by petitioners. It is submitted that the register was taken into custody by the police on 22.10.2008 itself, and the mahazar was also prepared showing that the pages were torn off. Therefore, there is no substance in the arguments advanced by the defence, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that during investigation, it is revealed from statement of various witnesses that petitioners are the persons involved in the offence along with others. It is also pointed out that statement B.A.No.6916 of 2008 3 of witnesses are available in the case diary to clearly implicate petitioners in the offence. On hearing both sides and on considering the nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I am not inclined to invoke provisions under section 438 Cr.P.C. The incident occurred as early as on 22.10.2008 and petitioners have not surrendered so far either before the Magistrate court or before the police. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, the petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac