IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7386 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.547/2009 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PETITIONERS/IST & 3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ 1. RAJENDRAN,AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.VELUTHA KUNJU,LEKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, KOTHAPURAM,WEST KALLADA,KOLLAM. 2. RAJESH,AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.RAGHAVAN, KALLUMOOTIL THARAYIL,KOTHAPURAM, WEST KALLADA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR SRI.SREEVALSAN.V RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. SRI. AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7386 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.547/2009 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 379 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 12, 20 and 21 of the Kerala River Bank Protection (Regulation of Removal of Sand Mining) Act, 2001. 3. The prosecution case is that on 22/8/2009, the S.I. of Police and party found that the accused were indulged in illegal sand mining. The accused were filling the sand in two country boats. On seeing the police party, they escaped by swimming away. The police party some how managed to bring the two country boats to the shore. The boats were entrusted to the custody of police constables. On getting information that another offence of sand mining was being committed in a nearby place, the S.I. of Police and party went to that place. The allegation is that before the S.I. of Police could come back to the place, the accused persons forcibly took away the two country boats and B.A. No. 7386 / 2009 2 drowned the same in the river. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised a contention that Rule 27 of the Sand Rules was not followed and therefore, the seizure of the country boats was illegal. When the counsel realised about the prejudice that might be caused to the petitioners if that point were to be decided against them, the counsel sought to reserve the same to be agitated at the appropriate stage. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm