IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6672 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.748/2009 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ---------------------------------------------- 1. PREMKUMAR , AREA MANAGER,COCHIN VRL LOGISTICS LTD,VADAKKEL BUILDING, KUTTIKATTUKARRA, KALAMASSERY ERNAKULAM. 2. N.DIVAKARAN, VEHICLE IN CHARGE VRL LOGISTICS LTD,VADAKKEL BUILDING, KUTTIKATTUKARRA, KALAMASSERY ERNAKULAM. 3. K.H.HALAIAH, REGIONAL MANAGER MANGALORE REGION, N.H.17, KULUR, MANGALORE-13. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR FOR ADDL.R2 SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN.C.H FOR ADDL.R2 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 6674 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.Nos.6672 & 6674 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 ORDER These are applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.748 of 2009 of Kottayam West Police Station are the petitioners in Bail Application No.6672 of 2009. Accused Nos.4 to 6 in the said crime are the petitioners in Bail Application 6674 of 2009. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 are respectively the Area Manager, Vehicle-in-charge and Regional Manager of VRL Logistic Ltd., a public limited company. Accused Nos.4 to 6 are stated to be head load workers. The de facto complainant was admittedly the agent of VRL Logistic Ltd. 4. It would appear that a dispute arose between the Company on the one hand and their agent (the de facto BA Nos. 6672 & 6674/2009 2 complainant) on the other. According to the Company, the agency was terminated. Goods belonging to the Company intended to be supplied to the customers were kept in the godown in the possession of the agent. As a result of the dispute, the agent did not release the goods to the customers. It is stated that the police was convinced about the genuineness of the claim of the Company and the goods intended to be supplied to the customers were taken out of the godown in which the goods were kept. 5. The case of the de facto complainant is different. According to him, the accused persons attacked him in the morning on 23.10.2009 and the goods and computers were forcibly taken away by them. It is not in dispute that the de facto complainant has filed O.S.No.519 of 2009 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam against the Company and its Area Manager for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly taking possession of the goods from the plaintiff's godown and also from appointing any one else other than the plaintiff as the agent of the Company at Kottayam during the subsistence of the agency between the Company and the plaintiff. Along with the suit, an application for temporary BA Nos. 6672 & 6674/2009 3 injunction was filed. The civil court passed Annexure A7 order dated 23rd October, 2009 whereby the respondents/defendants were restrained by an interim injunction order from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the building in question. 6. On 24.10.2009, the de facto complainant filed a complaint before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kottayam against the petitioners. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime No.748 of 2009 was registered. In the complaint, it is stated that the offence was committed by the petitioners in the morning on 23.10.2009. As stated earlier, Annexure A7 interim order of injunction was passed on 23.10.2009. Prima facie, it is not shown that the act alleged by the complainant was in violation of the injunction order. It is not so stated in the complaint as well. When the Bail Applications came up for hearing on 17th November, 2009, the following order was passed in both these applications : “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before BA Nos. 6672 & 6674/2009 4 disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 23rd and 24th November, 2009. Post on 30.11.2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.748 of 2009 of Kottayam West Police Station. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer.” 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor that the directions in the order dated 17.11.2009 were complied with. 8. The de facto complainant is represented by Advocate P.Chandrasekhar. He opposed the Bail Application vehemently. 9. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the pendency of the civil suits, the nature of the disputes involved between the parties and the alleged case of termination BA Nos. 6672 & 6674/2009 5 of tenancy, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to get anticipatory bail. Accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Applications are allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl