IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8604 of 2011 CRIME NO.616 OF 2011 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS : ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6 1. BINEESH T.P,S/O.BABU, THAYYILPUTHIYAPURAYIL VEEDU, MADAPPALLI P.O, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. AZAD DIN, S/O.DINESAN, KULANGARAVAYALIL VEEDU, MAKKADA P.O, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE. 3. SURESH,S/O.KUTTIRAMAN, KOLLERIKKAL MEETHAL VEEDU, P.O KURUVATTOOR, KOZHIKODE. 4. MANESHKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN, THAVAROADKUNI VEEDU, THALAKKULATHOOR, ATHOLI,KOZHIKODE. 5. MAHAROOB,S/O.MUHAMMED,KATTANCHERI VEEDU, VELIMANNA,THAMARASSERY,KOZHIKODE. 6. AKHIL,S/O.BHASKARAN,VADAKKEKUNI VEEDU, THALAKKULATHOOR, ATHOLI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT AND STATE 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE 673 512. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.K.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 8604 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.616 of 2011 of Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 188, 506(ii), 307, 332, 333 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following: One Nirmal Madhav was granted admission at Government Engineering College, Kozhikode, as per the order passed by the High Court in a Writ Petition. However, a group of students belonging to the Students Federation of India (SFI) did not allow Nirmal Madhav to enter into the College on 10.10.2011. On getting information about the same, the police party went to the spot. At that time, about 200 workers of BAIL APPL. NO.8604 OF 2011 :: 2 :: SFI attacked the police party and pelted stones and bricks towards them. The SFI activists shouted that the police people should be killed. Many of the police personnel got injured. Even after warning, the agitators did not disperse. Tear gas was used to disperse them, which did not succeed. Even lathi charge did not yield the required result. The attack on the police party continued. It is stated that several police personnel sustained serious injuries. It is also alleged that as a last resort, firing was required to disperse the mob. 4. The petitioners were arrested on 10.10.2011 and they were remanded to judicial custody. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and the other agitators were conducting peaceful agitation outside the college compound and some untoward incidents took place as the police attacked the agitators without any provocation. It is submitted that the petitioners are students and if they are detained in judicial custody, they would be put to untold misery and great hardship. BAIL APPL. NO.8604 OF 2011 :: 3 :: 6. The State Prosecutor submitted that it was not a peaceful agitation, but a deliberate vandalism that took place at the scene of occurrence. According to the State Prosecutor, the incidents took place not on a spur of a moment, but the attacks were made with pre-meditation. 7. The State Prosecutor also submitted that the agitators caused extensive damage to the college building and to the police vehicles. The total loss is estimated at `52,952/-. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioners are students, by way of extreme indulgence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners on stringent conditions. As held in Hemanth Kumar and others V. Sub Inspector of Police : 2011(4) KLT 288 and in the order dated 24.10.2011 in Bail Application No.8187 of 2011, when destruction is caused to the public property, the accused can be directed to deposit the amount equal to the value of the property or more, as a condition for granting bail. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of BAIL APPL. NO.8604 OF 2011 :: 4 :: the case, I am of the view that the petitioners should be directed to deposit a sum of `50,000/- as a condition for granting bail. 9. The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rupees Twenty five thousand each with two solvent sureties, of whom one shall be the father or mother or, if they are not alive, a relative of the petitioner, for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class IV, Kozhikode, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall together deposit a sum of `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only ) before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class IV, Kozhikode. The petitioners shall be released on bail only on such deposit. If the petitioners were to be acquitted finding that they are not guilty, they would be entitled to get refund of the amount. Otherwise, the amount would be at the disposal of the court trying the case; b) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Sundays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; c) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; d) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; BAIL APPL. NO.8604 OF 2011 :: 5 :: e) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/