IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5198 of 2009 CRIME NO.257 OF 2009 OF ARYANKODU POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.4,7,5,6,14,8,9,13,10,11 & 12: ---------------------------------------- 1. VINOD S., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, VAZHICHAL, RODARIKATHU VEEDU VAZHICHAL DESOM, KUTTAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ABHILASH.S., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, VAZHICHAL, RODARIKATHU VEEDU, VAZHICHAL DESOM, KUTTAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. BINOD.T. @ SUMESH, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, VAZHICHAL, PERUMTHODATHU VEEDU, VAZHICHAL DESOM, KUTTAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. RATHEESH.B., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.BABU, RATHEESH BHAVAN, VAZHICHAL DESOM, KUTTAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. BABU.R., AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, RATHEESH BHAVAN, VAZHICHAL DESOM, KUTTAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 6. CHANDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SADASIVAN, VAZHICHAL, RODARIKATHU VEEDU, VAZHICHAL DESOM, KUTTAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 7. LENIN.N.R., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, VAZHICHAL, MADASSERY VEEDU, VAZHICHAL DESOM, KUTTAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 8. JOY, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MUTHUNAYAKAM, VAZHICHAL, KUZHIYAR THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, VAZHICHAL DESOM, KUTTAMALA P.O., THIRUVANASNTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 9. RAJESH, S/O.RAVINDRAN, AGED 26 YEARS, VAZHICHAL, PERITHOTTAKKU VEEDU, VAZHICHAL DESOM, KUTTAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 10. RADHEESH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.RAVI, VAZHICHAL, RATHEESH BHAVAN, VAZHICHAL DESOM, KUTTAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 11. RATHESH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAVI, VAZHICHAL, RATHEESH BHAVAN, VAZHICHAL DESOM, KUTTAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, ALONG WITH BA NO.5200 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NOS.5198 & 5200 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010 O R D E R These Bail Applications are filed by some of the accused persons in Crime Nos.256 of 2009 and 257 of 2009 of Aryankodu Police Station, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. B.A.No.5200 of 2009 relates to Crime No.256 of 2009. The petitioners therein are accused Nos.4, 7, 5, 6, 14, 8, 19, 13, 10, 11 and 12. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1) and 5 of the PDPP Act. 3. B.A.No.5198 of 2009 relates to Crime No.257 of 2009. The petitioners therein are accused Nos.4, 7, 5, 6, 14, 8, 9, 13, 10, 11 and 12. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 332, 308, 294(b), 354 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) and 5 of the PDPP Act. 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 16.8.2009 B.A. NOS. 5198 & 5200 OF 2010 :: 2 :: at 9.15 PM, the petitioners and the other accused prevented the police party from discharging their official duties. It is alleged that the jeep in which the police party proceeded was intercepted and damage was caused to the vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 16.8.2009, results of the election of the co-operative society in the locality were declared and the persons who are supporters of the political party of which the petitioners are workers, came out as elected candidates. There was jubilation and a procession was conducted by the winning party. The petitioners participated in the procession. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case was foisted against the petitioners. 5. The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the supporters of the winning political party left the place after a procession was held. Thereafter, the accused persons went near the house of the defeated candidates and indulged in committing offences. At that time, when the police party went there, the accused persons attacked the police party and caused obstruction to their official duties. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the offence alleged against the accused in Crime No.257 of B.A. NOS. 5198 & 5200 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 2009 is that they trespassed into the premises of the police station and attacked the police personnel found in the police station. It is stated that injuries resulting in fracture of ribs were caused to the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. The incident in Crime No.257 of 2009 took place later in point of time. It is alleged that due to the illegal acts of the accused persons, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police had sustained serious injuries and the functioning of the police in the police station was disrupted. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that these are fit cases where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/