IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5349 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2357/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO. POLICE STATION PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------- MANZOOR, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O SHAJAHAN, MANSOOR SHA MANZIL, KOTTAMKULANGARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 5349 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of September,2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, accused 1 and 2 were found dumping animal waste in backwaters on 20-7-2008 at about 8.30 a.m. They were arrested from the spot and during investigation, it is revealed that vehicle, which was used for carrying the animal waste, belonged to petitioner and he had entrusted the waste to the other accused, and hence he was also implicated in the offence. The alleged offences are under sections 268 and 270 IPC and section 3(2)(a) of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is only the owner of the vehicle in which the article was carried. But, petitioner has nothing to do with the offence. The vehicle was hired, and he is not aware of the purpose for which it was allegedly used, and he has no connection with the crime, it is submitted. It is also submitted that offence under section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act will not be attracted in this case, going by the language of that section. This BA 5349/08 -2- is the only non bailable offence alleged in the crime and all other offences are bailable offences. It is submitted that no recovery is to be effected and petitioner may not be required for effecting recovery and hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. This application is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case diary reveals that petitioner himself entrusted the animal waste to other accused for dumping into the back water and, his own vehicle was used for the said purpose. It is also revealed from the case diary that petitioner is running a meat shop, and the animal waste is being carried from the shop to the back water. Referring to section 3(2)(a) of the Act and the definition of “mischief” under the Act, it is submitted that the “mischief” has the same meaning as stated in section 425 IPC and a close reading of section 425 IPC will clearly show that offence under section 3(2)(c) of the Act will be attracted in an offence of this nature, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of allegations made against petitioner, it may not be fit to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a direction may be issued to consider the bail application on the same day itself. If the petitioner BA 5349/08 -3- surrenders and if any bail application is filed, learned Magistrate will consider the same, as expeditiously as possible, and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The application is dismissed. Hand over the order. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.