IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 97 of 2008() --------------------------- CRIME NO.538/07 OF THE ADMIALY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- 1. BENOY JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH, VATTAPPARA PUTHAN VEEDU, ADIMALY, MANNANKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. RENJU M.N., S/O NARENDRAN, MATHALIPARA HOUSE, MANNANKANDAM, ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. M.V.NARENDRAN, S/O VELAYUDHAN, MATHALIPARA HOUSE, MANNANKANDAM, ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/1/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 97 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 to 3. They face allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.353 of the IPC. That is the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners. 2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they went into the office of the de facto complainant – a Village Officer, and deterred her from discharging her official duties. The petitioners had applied for issue of a possession certificate. That possession certificate was not issued. They had allegedly gone to the superior officer of the de facto complainant, who, in turn, had issued a direction that the needful be done expeditiously to the de facto complainant. With that direction, the petitioners had allegedly gone to the B.A. No. 97 OF 2008 -: 2 :- office of the de facto complainant. On receipt of the directions from the superior officer, the de facto complainant was allegedly preparing to proceed to the property at 4.45 p.m. on 27/12/07. The petitioners allegedly obstructed her, showered obscene abuses on her, deterred her from proceeding further and allegedly insisted that the possession certificate must be issued without proceeding to the property in question. A crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. It is true that there was a hot exchange of words between the petitioners on the one hand and the de facto complainant on the other. But the circumstances under which this incident took place are totally different and false and vexatious allegations are now being raised against the petitioners. As no prompt action was being taken on the request of the petitioners, in spite of the directions of the superior officer, the petitioners had only insisted that the needful be done by the de facto complainant – a public official, and there was no attempt whatsoever to deter her from the discharge of her official duties. The boot is actually on the other leg. The petitioners wanted the de facto complainant to B.A. No. 97 OF 2008 -: 3 :- discharge her official duty. But, it is alleged that on account of improper motives, the de facto complainant refused to do the needful. It was then that the hot exchange of words took place. The petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. They shall co-operate with the Investigator. Appropriate directions under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the petitioners, prays the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the conduct of the petitioners cannot be approved and deserves condemnation in unmistakable terms. It is hence submitted that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioners. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I take note of the broad circumstances and the background of the case. I take note of the assertion of the de facto complainant that she was intending to proceed to the property at 4.45 p.m. on 27/12/07 to inspect the property and to issue the possession certificate. I take note of the contention of the petitioners that she had refused to issue the certificate and they were insisting only an B.A. No. 97 OF 2008 -: 4 :- expeditious action. I shall not embark on any more detailed discussions about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that the totality of the circumstances lead me to the conclusion that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners subject, of course, to appropriate conditions which shall ensure the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 29/1/08. They shall be released on regular bail on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 30/1/08 and 31/1/08 and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law B.A. No. 97 OF 2008 -: 5 :- as if these directions were not issued at all; (iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 29/1/08 as directed in clause (i) above, they shall be released on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 29/1/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge