IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7240 of 2008() ------------------------------------ MP.18365/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II,THRISSUR CRIME NO.450/2008 OF THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------- 1. SIVAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KARIPPILLY PARAMBIL HOUSE, AVITTATHUR, THRISSUR DIST. 2. BABU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, SAKTHI NIVAS, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DIST. 3. K.K.VELAYUDHAN, KUTTIPURATH HOUSE, P.O.MULLASSERY, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DIST. 4. VIJAYAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, VELUTHUPARAMBIL, CHERPU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. CHANDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PARAPURATH HOUSE, MULLAKKAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DIST. 6. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PALA HOUSE, CHERPU, THRISSUR DIST. 7. KUTTAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, POOTHOLI HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA, THRISSUR DIST. 8. M.V.CHANDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, KUZHIKATTUSSERY, THRISSUR DIST. Bail Appl..No. 7240 of 2008 9. LOJANAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, AMBATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOVATHUSSERRY, KUMBUDI, MALA, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT : ----------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.7240 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with 2000 persons created a blockade at the gate of the Collectorate at Thrissur from 5.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. on 05.11.2008 and caused obstruction to the public and obstructed the government employees in the Collectorate from discharging the official duties. The petitioners were arrested and produced before the court on 11.11.2008 and they were remanded to judicial custody. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are tribals and they have not committed any offence but they were engaged in peaceful demonstration. They are in custody from 11.11.2008 onwards and they may be granted bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Magistrate dismissed the bail application and observed as follows : “This petition is opposed by the APP. She submits that many of the other accused are B.A.7240 of 2008 2 yet to be apprehended and the investigation of the case is in progress. She submits that due to the action of the petitioners the entire administrative machinery, including the judiciary, of the district was paralysed and this caused much nuisance to the public. She submits that if the accused are released on bail that may affect the investigation of the case and there is chance of tampering the evidence. .........Considering the serious nature of the offence alleged and the fact that the other accused are yet to be apprehended, I am of the view that the release of the petitioners at this stage may badly affect the investigation”. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is not yet over and that the blockade paralysed functioning of the government offices including the courts and the act committed by petitioners caused nuisance to the public. If the petitioners are released on bail, it may affect the investigation and there is chance to tamper with evidence. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. I also agree with what learned Magistrate observed. I also recall what is held in Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 287 (FB)) a decision of the Full Bench of this Court. It is held B.A.7240 of 2008 3 thus: ".........It may be true that the political parties and organisers may have a right to call for non-co-operation or to call for a general strike as a form of protest against what they believe to be either an erroneous policy or exploitation. But when exercise of such a right infracts the fundamental right of another citizen who is equally entitled to exercise his rights, the question is whether the right of the political party extends to the right of violating the right of another citizen. The fact that the citizens of this country have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble peaceably and freedom to form associations or unions does not mean that they can exercise those freedoms in whatever place they please. The exercise of those freedoms will come to an end as soon as the right of someone else to hold his property intervenes. Such a limitation is inherent in the exercise of those rights......." More than a decade has passed since then. Still, things do not seem to change or improve. At this stage of investigation, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioners, in the larger interest of public. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac