IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 915 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRMP.506/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.142/08 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS ---------------------------- 1. JAFFARKHAN MUHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 42 PUTHIRIYIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. GEO MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW JOSEPH, AGED 26 CHELLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUPRIARAMKARA MANAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. DEAN KURIAKOSE, S/O.A.M.KURIAKOSE, AGED 26, ENANICAL HOUSE, KULAPPURAM KARA, KADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. MAHESH, S/O.SIVAN ACHARI, AGED 31 CHOOKANVEETTIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA (CRIME NO.142 OF 2008 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 915 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 to 4. They face allegations of commission of offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.353 read with Sec.149 and Sec.3 of the PDPP Act. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they, along with 11 others, were members of an unlawful assembly which indulged in acts of violence and mischief against the police officials charged with responsibility of maintaining law and order. They allegedly assaulted the police officials showering abuses on them, deterred them from discharging their official duty and also caused damage to the police vehicle in which the police officials had come to the scene. The alleged incident took place on 31/1/08. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. B.A. No. 915 OF 2008 -: 2 :- Investigation is in progress. The petitioners have not been arrested yet. They apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They are active political functionaries of the opposition and that is the reason why they have been unnecessarily and vexatiously arrayed as accused. There were objections against the high handed action of the police officials in connection with the College Day celebrations of a local college. The political activists were only raising objections about the high handed action of the police officials. Because of that, vexatious allegations are now being raised against the petitioners, it is submitted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the despicable events which had taken place cannot, at any rate, be attributed to the political activity. Political activists should not feel that they have licence to resort to any act of violence and mischief in the name of political activism. The learned Public Prosecutor shows to the Court the photographs that have been published in the newspapers which show that one of the petitioners was on top of a police vehicle which is alleged to have suffered damage in the course of incident. The learned Public Prosecutor B.A. No. 915 OF 2008 -: 3 :- submits that there are no circumstances whatsoever justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners. They may be directed to surrender and seek bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that, at any rate, the case of the petitioners 2 to 4 may be considered differently. Directions under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. may be issued, at least, in their favour, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. At the request of this Court, the Case Diary was placed before me for my perusal. I have perused the same. At this early stage of the investigation, I shall not embark on any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I take note of the fact that the petitioners are named in the FIR. The available indications from the Case Diary clearly point to the culpable involvement of the petitioners. I am unable to accept the argument that the petitioners being political activists are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Political activists in this country must be models for those who follow them. I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where directions under B.A. No. 915 OF 2008 -: 4 :- Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. can or ought to be issued in favour of the petitioners. They must, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. 6. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously in the light of the decision in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge