IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7585 of 2009() ----------------------------- CMP.2893/2009 of J.M.F.C., KATTAPPANA CRIME NO.689 OF 2009 OF KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(SACCUSED): ------------------------------------- 1. PEETHAMBARAN @ KANCHIYAR PEETHAMBARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, KOONTHALIL HOUSE, I.T.I. KUNNUBHAGOM, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE. 2. MANOJ, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, CHULLOLIPOYKAYIL HOUSE, KUNTHALAMPARA BHAGOM, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. Q. BARKATH ALI, J. ---------------------------------------- B.A.No.7585 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of January, 2010 ORDER This is a bail application filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime No.689 of 2009 of Kattapana Police Station coming within the jurisdiction of First Class Magistrate, Kattapana under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with accused Nos.3 to 6 trespassed into the property of Kattapana Grama Panchayath, opposite to Kattapana bus stand and constructed a shed therein on 07-12-2009 at 10.30 a.m and that when the de-facto complainant, who is the Secretary of Grama Panchayath tried to remove the obstruction, they threatened to kill him and caused damage to the wire fencing and boundary stone of that property to the extent of Rs.5000/- and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 447, 143, 144, 147, 148, 309, 353, 427 r/w 149 IPC and section 3(1) of P.D.P.P Act. The petitioners were arrested on 07-12- 2009 and the learned Magistrate remanded them thereafter. Trial court refused to grant bail to accused Nos.1 and 2 but released on bail accused Nos.3 to 6. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the property in dispute belonged to 5th accused who is the mother of 1st accused who obtained the property under a sale agreement dated 03- B.A.No.7585 of 2009 2 04-1971 executed by one Joseph Thomas, copy of which is produced as annexure B document and that they are innocent of the offences alleged against them. 4. Notice given to the Public Prosecutor. The petition is opposed by Public Prosecutor. Heard the counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 5. The accused are asserting their right over the disputed property through annexure B document. Therefore it is a civil dispute between the petitioners and Panchayath. Further they are arrested on 07-12-2009 and is in custody for more than 24 days. It is submitted by Public Prosecutor that main witnesses have already being questioned by the police. Further, accused Nos.3 to 6 have already been released on bail. In the circumstances I feel that petitioners can be released on bail, but on conditions. In the result, the petition is allowed. Petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the lower court on the following conditions. (i) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when ordered. (ii) Petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not commit similar offences while on bail. B.A.No.7585 of 2009 3 (iii) Petitioners shall not try to influence the witnesses or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE Sbna/ h/o