IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7089 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.949/2008 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION) APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------ MUHAMMED SHAFEEK,S/O.M.C.ABBOBACKER, MELECHERUKUNNATHIL, CHERUKARA P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIHG COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING, THE S.I.OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 7089 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Section 332 read with 34 of IPC and Section 20 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. According to prosecution, the police party got information that illegal sand mining was going on and when they reached the PLACE, petitioner was found transporting sand in an autorickshaw. He turned the vehicle in reverse direction and sped away. While so, the Sub Inspector and other police constables ran towards the autorickshaw and they wanted the driver to come out of the vehicle. While so, petitioner pushed him and when Sub Inspector tried to prevent it, he took the vehicle forward and it hit against his left hand and he sustained injuries. Though the vehicle was chased in a jeep, it could not be caught. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations will not constitute offence under Section 332 IPC. Consequent to the registration of crime, the Sub Inspector of [B.A.No.7089/08] 2 Police threatened the inmates of the house of petitioner and the petitioner's grand father had lodged a complaint before the Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition as evidenced by Annexures A and B. The grand father of petitioner is a leader of Congress party and hence, petitioner was being harassed unnecessarily, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint clearly attract offence under Section 332 of IPC. The investigating officer sustained injury, though it is a minor one. He attempted to prevent the vehicle from being taken forward and thereby, sustained minor. It is also pointed out that the vehicle involved in the incident is not seized and petitioner is required for recovery of vehicle. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner is required for recovery of vehicle etc. At this stage, I do not find it fit to make any conclusion that no offence under Section 332 IPC is attracted. In the nature of the allegations made and considering the nature of investigation required, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.