IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1901 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.215/2008 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ---------------------------------------- U.V.SIDDIQUE, S/O MUHAMMED, ULLATTUVALAPPIL HOUSE, VATTAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.1901 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under Section 353 I.P.C. Altogether there are eight accused persons, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. The crux of the allegations is that the de facto complainant who was heading a special team to detect the offences relating to illicit sand mining was proceeding to chase certain vehicles. The petitioner, on a motorcycle, as well as some others allegedly attempted to obstruct the de facto complainant from proceeding with her official work. He allegedly showered abuses on her obviously in an attempt to deter her from the discharge of her official duties. Crime was registered on the basis of a written complaint filed by the de facto complainant. She claims to have ascertained the name of the miscreant on local enquiry. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all submits that there is no basis for pointing the accused any finger at the petitioner. It is not clear how the de facto complainant had ascertained the name of the petitioner. B.A.No.1901/08 2 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that even in the complaint it has been very clearly stated that on local enquiry the name of the petitioner has been ascertained. That the name of the person to whom the enquiry has been made is not referred in the complaint is no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that at any rate, the allegations, even if accepted in toto, cannot amount to assault or use of force against the de facto complainant. I have carefully gone through the allegations. The very specific allegation is that the obstruction was caused against the de facto complainant from proceeding further with her official duties. Abuses were showered in an attempt to deter her from the discharge of her official duties. I am not, in these circumstances, able to come to a conclusion that the allegations shall not constitute an offence under Section 353 I.P.C. I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected. B.A.No.1901/08 3 5. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 6. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and apply for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.1901/08 4 B.A.No.1901/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007