IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1965 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.85/2010 OF VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ---------------------------------------------- 1. MANU CHELLAPPAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, AGED 33 YEARS, CHITTADIKALLEL HOUSE, CHITHIRAPURAM, P.O., ANACHAL. 2. BINU, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, KOCHERIL HOUSE, S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, T.C.35/1028, J.M.ROAD, VALLAKKADAVU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PATHROSE, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, PUTHENPURAKAL HOUSE, PURAPPUZHA POST. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 1965 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 3(1) of PDPP Act. According to prosecution, between 14.03.2010 and 15.03.2010 second petitioner herein over-turned six barrels of tar, kept by the side of the road, which was intended for tarring of a pubic road. Assistant Engineer of PWD is the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the photograph produced along with this bail application will show that only three barrels were over-turned. It is also submitted that petitioners once belonged to CITU but recently, they joined another union. Because of this, false allegations are made against petitioners. Petitioners are prepared to co-operate with the investigation. 4. It is also submitted that the tar was misappropriated by the PWD contractor and to explain the same, a false complaint is filed. It is also pointed out that there were several barrels kept B.A. No. 1965 / 2010 2 on the road and only three barrels over-turned as per the photograph. If the intention was to destroy the articles, all the barrels could have been over-turned, it is submitted. 5. Learned Pubic Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations made six barrels of tar were turned down by the second petitioner herein. First and third petitioners are not implicated in the offence and police has no intention to arrest them in this crime. These submissions are recorded. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to first and third petitioners, since they are not accused in this crime. However, considering the various facts and the circumstances and absence of motive, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to second petitioner and the following order is passed: 1. The prayer for anticipatory bail by the first and third petitioner is rejected, since they are not accused in the case. 2. Second petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. B.A. No. 1965 / 2010 3 3. On such surrender, if second petitioner is arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the condition that he shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. 4). This order will be in force only for a period of one month from today and the second petitioner shall seek regular bail from the appropriate court within such time. This petition is partly allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln