IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7307 of 2008() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.572/2008 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2 : ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SURARAJ, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SAHADEVEN, PUSHPAVILASOM, NEAR OMKARESWARAM TEMPLE, CHERTHALA. 2. UBESH U.KAIMAL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, USHALAYAM, NEAR MAROTHORVATTOM TEMPLE, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.THAMPI (SR) SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7307 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 394, 323, 452, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are accused nos.1 and 2, along with other accused, in furtherance of common intention, committed trespass into the Government Polytechnic on 27.8.2008 and they assaulted defacto complainant and others and also committed mischief by destroying articles in the college. They also took away Rs.4,300/- from the pocket of defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are the second year and third year students of LLB course at Siddartha Law College, Karnataka. They are leaders of the SFI union and on knowing that an election was conducted in the Government Polytechnic, they had come to the premises to the Government Polytechnic. But, they had no intention to commit any offence. They were only anxious to know about the results. But, it was understood that defacto complainant, who BA No.7307 /2008 2 belonged to another union, won the election. Some incident happened inside the campus, but it is not as alleged by prosecution. An amount of Rs.4,300/- was allegedly snatched away from the pocket which allegation by itself is not a probable one, it is submitted. 4. It is also pointed out that the crime was registered not on the basis of any complaint lodged by defacto complainant. But, police came to the Government Polytechnic and took a statement from defacto complainant, on coming to know that there were some commotion in the institute. It is also pointed out that the injured had not gone to the doctor to petitioners' information. If petitioners are detained in custody, they will suffer irreparable injury and loss, it is submitted. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the incident happened inside the premises of Government Polytechnic and defacto complainant was criminally intimidated by showing a spade and blow was also aimed at him which hit on the drum and the drum was damaged. Obscene language was also used inside premises of an educational institution. However, he conceded that offence under Section BA No.7307 /2008 3 394 IPC, was deleted during the course of investigation. 5. On hearing both sides, it appears that the incident is an offshoot of politics in campus, which is deprecated by the court from time to time. Petitioners are students of a totally different institution which is situated in another state. They have no explanation for going to the place of occurrence. At this stage of investigation, I can only go by the materials available in the case diary and I am not persuaded to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature. The crime was registered as early as on 27.8.2008 and petitioners are required for investigation and interrogation. Petitioners are therefore directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl