IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9421 of 2011 CRIME NO.662 OF 2011 OF PUTHENVELIKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- T.B.SUDHISH, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.BALAPPAN, THEKKINKATTIL HOUSE, ELANTHIKARA.P.O., PUTHENVELIKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTHENVELIKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED: KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTING SUB ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PUTHENVELIKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.10.2011 IN CRL.M.A.NO.7697 OF 2011. ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 9421 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.662 of 2011 of Puthenvelikara Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 8.11.2011, the Sub Engineer, Electrical Section Office, Puthenvelikara got information that a wooden electric post was being cut down from the property belonging to one Davis. On inspection, the Sub Engineer found that a damaged post was cut down. At the time of inspection, the petitioner and the workers were there. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a contractor who entered into a contract with the owner BAIL APPL. NO. 9421 OF 2011 :: 2 :: of the property to construct a house in the property. It is also submitted that the petitioner agreed to compensate the Board in respect of any loss sustained by the Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no deliberate act on the part of the petitioner and after clearing the land and taking necessary steps for the construction of the house, the damaged post was removed. There was no guilty intention at all to remove the property belonging to the Kerala State Electricity Board. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board submitted that the Board sustained a loss of `12,288/- as a result of the wrongful act committed by the accused. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rupees Ten thousand with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: BAIL APPL. NO. 9421 OF 2011 :: 3 :: a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/