IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6307 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.552/2008 OF KASABA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS:- ------------------------------ 1. ASHKAR.C. AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, CHEKKINTAVIDE, MUKKALBHAGOM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. RIYAS.P.AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN KOYA MOHAMMEDAJI PARAMBA, CHAKKUMKADAVU, PANNIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE. 3. ANASU RAHMAN, S/O.ALIKOYA, AGED 34 YEARS, KHADEEJA NIVAS, NEAR P& P QUARTERS, NALLILAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. 4. HAREESH BABU, S/O. APPUKUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS,A.S.VILLA, KUTHIRAVATTOM NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE. 5. JAFAR K. AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. ALAVI, THANGALKUNNUMMAL, BEACH ROAD, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO.552/2008 OF KASABA POLICE STATION KOZHIKODE). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No.6307 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 353 read with section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, on 17-9-2008 de facto complainant - Intelligence Officer, Sales- tax Department showed signal to stop an autorickshaw, but without stopping the same, it went to an establishment by name Royal Touch in the Century Complex. De facto complainant and other officials in the team went to the said shop and asked the owner to show the documents relating to the ready-made goods brought in the vehicle. No documents were made available and hence, a notice was given to pay penalty. At that time, about 200 merchants in the complex came to the spot and blocked the official vehicle and caused obstruction to the discharge of the official duty. The officials were also assaulted. It is only after the police flying squad reached the spot, the officials could complete their work. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the incident did not occur as alleged by prosecution or as alleged by BA 6307/08 -2- de facto complainant in the First Information Statement. The sales-tax officials came to the complex and insisted that stock should be verified. This happened during the onam season and hence, merchants requested not to make the inspection on that day and that they were prepared to co-operate with the inspection on a subsequent day. This was for the reason that the shops will have to be closed down if inspection is conducted and this will incur heavy loss to the merchants. The entire merchants in the complex gathered and made a request to de facto complainant, but without heeding to the request, he continued the inspection and all the merchants raised objection. No offence, as alleged, was committed, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. This is a case where sales- tax officials were prevented from conducting inspection. They were also assaulted by the accused and officials had also been examined by doctor. 5. In the light of the contentions raised, I have gone through the case diary. On going through the case diary, First Information Statement and the statement given by de facto BA 6307/08 -3- complainant under section 161 Cr.P.C. it appears that 200 persons came to de facto complainant while he was standing by the side of Rajaji Road where, the vehicle was stopped and it was from there that he was allegedly deterred from duty. As per the wound certificate, there are no external injuries also on the officials. Petitioners have strong arguable case and in the above circumstances, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner on conditions. 6. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and make himself available for interrogation. (2) Thereafter, in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail, on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. BA 6307/08 -4- ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence any witness or commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.