IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH APRIL 2010 / 30TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2297 of 2010(B) ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1006/2009 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- RENJU T.S., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SARALADEVI, RENJU NIVAS, AKKONAM, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENT : COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K. MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2297 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of April, 2010 O R D E R This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioner apprehends arrest connected with Crime No. 1006 of 2009 of Chadayamangalam Police Station in which the offence punishable under Sections 120 B of I.P.C and the provisions of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 are involved. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the accused with the intention and knowledge of damaging the public property and make a success of the Harthal sponsored by BMS and on conspiring with BMS and BJB leaders of the local area on 29.12.2009 at 9.30 a.m at Chadayamangalam Village, Sreerangam had destroyed the glass of a KSRTC Bus No.RAE 740 which was on route from Erumeli to Trivandrum thereby causing a loss of Rs.19,000/-. Rs.4,000/- on account of destruction of back side glass of the bus and Rs.15,000/- on account of non Bail A.No.2297 Of 2010 -:2:- operating of service. Thus the accused are alleged to have committed the above offence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially the gravity of the offences involved and the allegations, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner as the same will adversely affect the investigation in the above crime which is now in progress. It is not proper for this Court to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner, at this stage. In the result, I find no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE rtr/