IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 535 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.438/08 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.SASEENDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN, VAISHAK NIVAS P.O.MUNDALUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 535 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 506(ii), 427 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 31.12.2008 at about 1 a.m, petitioner went to the house of de facto complainant, armed with a chopper and committed mischief by breaking the window glass and also criminally intimidated him and abused him in obscene language stating that he will be killed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was an active worker of CPI(M) for a long time. In the year 1992 he was convicted for committing murder of a Congress worker and after serving the life sentence, he came out of the prison and he was leading a peaceful life. He did not want to join the party again, but the party wanted petitioner for militant activities, for which he was not amenable. Therefore, the partymen were creating problems to him and the present case BA.535/09 2 is falsely foisted against him, under their influence, with a view to presssurise him to join the party or leave the place, if he is not willing to oblige, it is submitted. 4. According to prosecution, on 30.12.2008, some known persons belonging to the CPI(M) attacked petitioner, robbed gold chain, bracelets, mobile phone and R.C book of the vehicle, in which he was travelling with one Ratheesh. The vehicle was also damaged and though a complaint was lodged before the Edakkad police, no crime was registered, under the influence of the CPI(M) people. Therefore, he filed a complaint before the DGP on 5.1.2009, copy of which is Annexure-I. This also did not achieve any result. In the meanwhile, an attempt is made to get the petitioner arrested and harassed by filing false complaint of the present nature, it is submitted. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that nobody would normally dare to go to the house of de facto complainant, who has so much of influence and support as the local committee secretary of CPI(M). Even as per the allegations made, though petitioner was armed with chopper and he was a BA.535/09 3 life-convict for murder of another person, no injury was sustained by either de facto complainant or any of the inmates of the house, it is pointed out. The present allegations are made only with a view to see that petitioner is harmed by getting him arrested and harassed on baseless complaints and fabricating evidence, it is submitted. When an application for anticipatory bail was moved by petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, a submission was made by learned Public Prosecutor that petitioner has criminal antecedents and that he was involved in various crimes. 6. It is true that petitioner was involved in various crimes till the year 1992. Thereafter, he is not implicated in any offence and he has not committed any offence. But, there is an attempt now to falsely implicate petitioner in criminal cases and hence, the indulgence of this Court is requested to prevent miscarriage of justice because petitioner will be arrested, tortured and remanded, unless anticipatory bail is granted, it is submitted. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition and he will co-operate with investigation, it is submitted. BA.535/09 4 7. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner had a definite motive to come to the house of de facto complainant and commit mischief and other offences in the house. His vehicle was allegedly taken by some workers of CPI(M) and this was the reason why he had acted in the matter alleged in the complaint. He had committed house trespass, armed with a chopper, attracting offence under Section 452 IPC, it is submitted. The chopper is to be recovered. 8. On hearing both sides, considering the rival contentions and the various facts and circumstances pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner, I am of the view that petitioner has a strong and arguable case, which, he will be able to establish only during trial. Hence, if anticipatory bail is refused, it will result in miscarriage of justice. The prosecution has no case at present that petitioner is involved in any other case after 1992. If there is no interference at this stage, it is likely that there could be some undesirable turn of events which is to be avoided, in the interest of justice. Hence, the following order is passed: BA.535/09 5 Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned, on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation as and when directed. ii). Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses or intimidate them or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.