IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3510 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CMP.90/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE ...................................... (CRIME NO.319/10 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RAHMAN C.H., S/O. KALANTHAN, AGED 47, KAVUNGILODI HOUSE, THURAYUR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 2. SAMEER, S/O. AMMAD, AGED 28, ODAYOTH HOUSE, THURAYUR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 3. SALEEL, S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 33, THATCHOTH HOUSE, THURAYUR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 4. FIROZ, S/O. POKKER, AGED 24, KIZHAKKEYIL HOUSE, THURAYUR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.3510 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 436 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners set fire to a thatched shed on 19.5.2010 at 1.45 am and thereby causing damage to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. 3. According to learned counsel for petitioners, there is a civil dispute between the parties in respect of a way leading to the house of the defacto complainant through petitioner’s property. An interim injunction order is obtained by 1st petitioner, as per annexure-1 order against defacto complainant and others. Thereafter defacto complainant, with the support of political party (C.P.I.M), started harassing the petitioner and the workers of the first accused were assaulted and a complaint was made to the police and case was registered u/s.324, 294(b) and 34 IPC. 4. Since the defacto complainant continued such illegal activities, first accused applied for police protection before the Sub B.A. No.3510/10 2 Inspector of Police (annexure -III). There was also an attempt to destroy a compound wall and defacto complainant intimidated stating that first accused's arms will be cut off etc. After filing annexure –III, posters appeared indicating threat against first accused from CPI(M). Thereafter, a complaint was lodged stating that a thatched shed was set fired to by petitioners. Actually, defacto complainant and his people set fire to the thatched shed by themselves, but a false complaint is filed against petitioners to harass them. If they are arrested, they will suffer irreparable injury and loss especially since defacto complainant is supported by ruling party. It is pointed out that name of the petitioner does not find a place in the FI statement. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that petitioners’ involvement is revealed from the statement given by various witnesses in the case diary. An autorikshaw driver had seen petitioner leaving the place in a car, after committing the offence on 19.5.2010 at about 1.45am. The crime is being investigated into and if petitioners are granted bail, it will adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, it appears that there is a civil dispute between the parties and petitioners had obtained orders B.A. No.3510/10 3 from the civil court against defacto complainant and others. It is also seen that petitioners and family members were apprehending danger to the lives and property and they had even applied for protection as per annexure-III. Even thereafter, the posters appeared which would indicate threat again from workers of CPI(M). The parties are residing adjacent compounds, but as per the statement of autorikshaw driver, petitioners were found escaping in a car. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that if anticipatory bail is not granted to petitioners, it will result in injustice. Hence the following order is passed: 1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. 2) In the event of their arrest, petitioners shall be produced before the Magistrate court concerned, in accordance with law, and they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent securities for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. B.A. No.3510/10 4 ii) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any witnesses or tamper with evidence. iii) Petitioners shall not enter the limits of the police station within which crime is registered for a period of two months from today. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.