IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 308 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.11/2010 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. PETITIONRS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. RAFEEQU, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, R/AT THALAKKI, PUTHOOR.P.O., MANJESHWARA, KASARAGOD DIST. 2. SHEREEF, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, R/AT THALAKKI, PUTHOOR.P.O., MAJESHWARA, KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2010 ALONG WITH BA NO. 310 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos.308 & 310 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 O R D E R B.A. No.308 of 2010 is filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime no. 11/2010 of Manjeshwar Police Station under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. B.A. No.310 of 2010 is filed by accused No.3 in the aforesaid crime for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 365 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant is a Camera man of T.V. -9 news channel operating from Mangalore. On 6/01/2010, the de facto complainant and his brother came to Kerala in a car. When the car reached Bakrabayal Kajapadavu, near the border of Kerala and Karnataka, the de facto complainant took the photographs of the lorries, in which sand was illegally being transported from Karnataka to Kerala. Some people approached the de facto complainant and B.A. Nos.308 & 310 of 2010 2 restrained him from taking photographs. Thereafter, the de facto complainant and his brother went to Vijayaduka to participate in the centenary celebrations of St. Loran's Church. When the de facto complainant was in the church, he received a call in his mobile phone and he was requested not to publish the photographs of the lorries. He was offered any amount which he wanted, for not publishing the photographs. The de facto complainant stated that it was his duty to arrange the news. At that time, the de facto complainant was threatened with dire consequences. At about 6 P.M. on the same date, while the de facto complainant was returning, he Videographed the movements of the lorries engaged in illegally transporting sand. Thereafter, he proceeded towards Mangalore. At about 6.30 P.M, on his way, the de facto complainant was intercepted by 50 persons at a place called Kajapadavu. The de facto complainant and his brother were beaten by the persons assembled there. When they fell down, they were taken to a place, where the illegally transported sand was stored. The photographs and pictures in the mobile phone and video camera were deleted. B.A. Nos.308 & 310 of 2010 3 The documents in respect of the vehicle were forcibly taken from the de facto complainant. For about two hours, the de facto complainant and his brother were detained by the accused. Later, they were released. While returning to Mangalore, they reported the matter to Karnataka police. With the help of Karnataka police, they informed the matter to Manjeshwar Police Station and accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. Accused No.3 was arrested on 7/1/2010 and he was remanded to judicial custody. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 apprehend arrest and therefore, they have filed application for anticipatory bail. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the allegations levelled against the accused, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to them, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Therefore, I am inclined to B.A. Nos.308 & 310 of 2010 4 dismiss B.A. No. 308 of 2010 filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2. 6. In so far as B.A. No.310 of 2010 is concerned, accused No.3 is in judicial custody since 7/1/2010. I do not think that continued detention of the petitioner in judicial custody is required in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Accused No.3 shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kasaragod subject to the following conditions:- A) Accused No.3 (petitioner in B.A. No.310 of 2010) shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays and Thursdays for a period of two months. B) Accused No.3 shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. C) Accused No.3 shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kasaragod within one week from today. If he does not hold an Indian Passport, an affidavit sworn to by him to that effect shall be filed before the learned Magistrate within one week. B.A. Nos.308 & 310 of 2010 5 D) Accused No.3 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. E) Accused No.3 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. F) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. For the aforesaid reasons, B.A. No.310 of 2010 is allowed in the manner indicated above and B.A. No.308 of 2010 is dismissed . K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm