IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7178 of 2008 -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION) .................. PETITIONER: ------------------- EMSY M KOLLANNUR, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. MATHAPPAN, KOLLANNUR HOUSE, PATTAMBI ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.RAJIT, SRI.RANJIT BABU. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL. NOS.7261/2008 & 7598/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7178 of 2008, B.A.No.7261 of 2008 & B.A.No.7598 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th January, 2009 O R D E R These petitions are for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 506 (1) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1) of the Prevention of Destruction to Public Property Act. According to prosecution, on 16.11.2008 at about 10 PM, while de facto complainant was driving the official car of the Chairman of the Kunnamkuklam Municipality, accused 1 to 4 interceptede the vehicle and de facto complainant was wrongfully restrained and assaulted and criminally intimidated. Damage was also caused to the official board fixed in the car, thereby they committed the various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that de facto complainant is not the official driver. He was driving the vehicle, since the official driver was on leave. He was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and people of the locality stopped the vehicle and questioned him. De facto BA.7178, 7261 & 7598/08 2 complainant reported that he has influence and support from the Chairman and abused them. In the course of this, some persons tried to damage the board, but no damage was caused to the car. Though de facto complainant would allege that he was brutally attacked, no wound certificate is available and no injury is sustained by him, but petitioners, who are the workers of CPI(M) rebel group, are falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the Chairman, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant was entitled to drive the official vehicle, since the official driver was not available. Petitioners are having enmity towards the Chairman because of a dispute in two factions of the same political party. Therefore, when de facto complainant was driving the vehicle, he was intercepted and assaulted and the board was attempted to be removed. In the nature of allegations made, anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that petitioners had come to the spot in a Maruti car and they were in a drunken stage at the time of commission of offences. BA.7178, 7261 & 7598/08 3 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I do not think that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. No circumstances are pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner which persuade me to invoke the provision contained in Section 438 Cr.P.C. Petitioners are bound to co-operate with the investigation and surrender before law. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer or the Magistrate Court concerned and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petitions are dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.