IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3974 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 248/2009 OF IRITTY POLICE STATON PETITIONER: ------------------ RAJESH BABU, S/O. GOPI AGED 34 YEARS, KANNOTH HOUSE, THILLANKERI AMSOM PALLIAM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRIUTTY POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S. BREEZE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ` K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3974 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.248/2009 of Iritty Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 The gist of the prosecution case is as follows:- On 3.07.2009, on the instruction from the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Mattannur, the Sub Engineer and Lineman went to the residential compound of one Lakshmi Amma. It was found that 200 metres away from the house there is a Pig farm and electrical line was illegally drawn from the residence of the Lakshmi Amma for operating a motor for pumping water to the Pig Farm. The Electrical line was drawn using wires in a dangerous manner, which according to the officers was dangerous to the inhabitants . They started to prepare a site Mahazar. The petitioner, who was running the Pig farm, obstructed them and forcibly snatched away the thondi articles, namely, the electrical B.A. No. 3974 of 2009 2 wires from them. The matter was reported to the Assistant Engineer, who immediately reported the matter to the Sub Inspector of Police. Accordingly the crime was registered. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln