IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 321 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.39/2010 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. MOHAMMED NABEEL AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. KUNJITHUTTY, MACHINGATHODY HOUSE, MARAKKARA AMSOM, KADAMPUZHA DESOM, KADAMPUZHA.P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2. SULAIMAN AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. KUNJALY, PULINCHODU HOUSE, KURUMBATHOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 3. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, KANNAMPILLIL HOUSE, KADAMPUZHA.P.O., MARAKKARA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.321 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010 ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest on an accusation of having committed non bailable offence in Crime No.39 of 2010 of Tirur Police Station. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners 2 and 3 are not arrayed as accused in the case and that there is no intention to arrest petitioners 2 and 3. It is also submitted that the first petitioner is the first accused in the case. 3. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 353 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case is that on 11.1.2010, at 9.15 A.M., the S.I. of Police, Tirur got reliable information that illegal sand mining was going on from Bharathapuzha. The S.I. and party went to the place where the sand mining allegedly took place. The S.I. of police saw five lorries being taken one after the other. The first accused was driving the first vehicle. The S.I. of police gave signal to stop the vehicle. The lorry was BA No.321/2010 2 taken in high speed by the first accused disobeying the direction issued by the Sub Inspector of Police. The Sub Inspector of Police fell down and he narrowly escaped from being run over by the lorry. The vehicle was followed by the police party. The first accused ran away abandoning the vehicle. The cleaner of the vehicle was arrested. 5. The learned counsel for the first petitioner/first accused submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. It is also submitted that the ingredients of Section 308 IPC are not available in the case at all. 6. Prima facie, I am of the view that there are materials to connect the first petitioner with the offence. It is alleged that he committed the offence under Sections 353 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. Both these offences are non bailable. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the contention of the first petitioner that the materials on record do not make out an offence under Section 308 of IPC. 7. The allegations levelled against the accused are grave in nature. I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory BA No.321/2010 3 bail can be granted to the accused. Custodial interrogation of the first petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Moreover, I am of the view that the first petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed on merits in so far as it relates to the first petitioner (first accused) and it is dismissed as unnecessary in so far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned as they are not made accused in the case. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl