IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3217 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.443/10 OF SOORANAD POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. (S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1,2: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SAJEEV.H., S/O.HAMEEDKUTTY, AGED 37 YEARS, VALIYETH PUTHEN VEEDU, ERAVICHIRA NADUVIL, SOORANAD SOUTH PATHARAM P.O., KOLLAM. 2. NOUSHAD, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, AGED 30 YEARS, VALIYAVEETTIL, EDAVANACHERRY, MYNAGAPPILLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 3217 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 2nd day of June , 2010. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Section 143, 147, 341, 332, 294(b) read with 149 IPC. According to prosecution, the police party got information that illegal sand mining was going on at a particular Kadavu and, on reaching there, a lorry filled with sand was found. Sand was about to be transported. On seeing the police party, petitioners (A1 and A2) along with 5 others surrounded the police party and started abusing them. Some persons tried to unload the sand kept in the lorry and this was prevented by a Police Constable while he was assaulted by the accused and thereby all the accused committed the various offences alleged, it is submitted. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners were not even present at the scene. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners were present at the scene and they were involved in the offence. [B.A.No.3217/2010] 2 The investigation reveals their presence and involvement in the case. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though the petitioners would contend that that they were not present at the scene, there is only a bare assertion, without any supporting material as against the petitioners in the case diary. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.