IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4699 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2988/2008 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.109/08 OF KANJIKUZHI POLICE STATION PETITIONERS ----------------- 1. GEORGE @ VAYALIL VACKACHAN S/O.JOSEPH, 50 YEARS VAYALIL HOUSE CHURALI KARA, KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE 2. MATHEW @ CHALIL THANKACHAN, S/O.JOSEPH 40 YEARS, CHALIL HOUSE, CHURALI KARA, KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REP. THE S.I. OF POLICE KANJIKUZHI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4699 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 323, 341, 427 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant is running a ration shop and the petitioners went to his ration shop on 9.7.2008 at about 8.45 PM and wanted the ration shop to be closed. When he resisted, they pulled down the shutter of the ration shop by force and confined the de facto complainant inside the ration shop. He made a telephone call and also made hue and cry and attracted the neighbours to the scene. The neighbours rescued him and the police came to the spot which he gave a statement which was recorded. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the Vice President of a Panchayat and an active political worker in the UDF respectively. They found that the de facto complainant was engaged in black marketing through the ration shop run by him. Ration shops are expected to be closed by 7.30 PM, but the de facto complainant's ration shop was found to be open till 8.30 PM and hence petitioenrs wanted him to close the shop. He was not amenable to this. There was an altercation. BA.4699/08 2 Thereafter, petitioners wanted this illegality to be exposed by informing the police and to see that de facto complainant does not escape. 4. The shutter was pulled down but the de facto complainant in the meantime made a telephone call and before the petitioners could inform the police, the police reached the spot. But de facto complainant is a strong supporter of the LDF and he prevailed upon the police. Using the political influence, the petitioners are now being falsely implicated in the offence. 5. The petitioners apprehend arrest by the police and also harassment, since under the strong influence of the de facto complainant, the petitioners will be tortured in the police station, it is submitted. It is also submitted that the de facto complainant did not sustain any injury. But, at the instance of the police, he went to the doctor at 12.45 in the night. No injury was noted by the doctor. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that even during pendency of this petition, attempts were made to arrest the petitioners, by stating that there was no written information received at the police station regarding pendency of the case In such circumstances, a request is made for anticipatory bail. BA.4699/08 3 6. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the fact that the petitioners are Vice President and the worker of UDF is not disputed. But, it is submitted that they wrongfully confined the de facto complainant by pulling down the shutter, for which they have no authority. Even if the de facto complainant had committed any illegality, the petitioners ought not to have behaved the manner alleged in the complaint. It is submitted that the de facto complainant was examined by the doctor. It is admitted that the first information statement was taken from the ration shop. 7. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that if the petitioners are refused anticipatory bail, it is likely that they will be harassed. It will result in irreparable injury and loss. May be the petitioners have no authority to detect the crime and punish the de facto complainant, if an offence is committed by him, but, they have right to inform the police and book the culprit. There is no explanation why the shop was kept open at 8.45 PM. In the above circumstances, the following order is passed: Petitioners shall be released on bail, in the event of their arrest on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for BA.4699/08 4 the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on condition that they will appear before the investigating officer as and when directed and co- operate with the investigation. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.