IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7729 of 2008 -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 45/2008 OF THE KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS. 1, 3 AND 4: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMADALI, AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.ABU, MATTUVAL HOUSE, PATHIMANGALAM, KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. MUHAMMED.M.P, S/O.MAMMY, MUDAPPILAKKAL HOUSE,PADANILAM.P.O, KUNNAMANGALAM. 3. RAZAK, S/O.MAMMY, MUDAPPILAKKAL HOUSE, PADANILAM.P.O, KUNNAMANGALAM. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVA KUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.7729 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Sections 332 read with 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, on 09.02.2008 at about 12.45 p.m., an Advocate Commissioner appointed by High Court of Madras and a Head Constable with other police constables went to the property of first accused, where a truck was parked for the purpose of seizing the truck owned by him. At that time, first accused along with 7 others assaulted the Advocate Commissioner and obstructed them from seizing the vehicle and thereby committed the offences. 3. According to petitioner, the police constable as well as the Advocate Commissioner were not in uniform. They were in mufti and when they attempted to take away the truck belonging to first accused, without showing the order, it was prevented without knowing their identity. They have not committed the offence knowingly. Petitioners are prepared to abide by any condition and they may be granted anticipatory B.A.No.7729 of 2008 2 bail. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the materials in the case diary, the Advocate Commissioner had showed the order of the High Court and in spite of that, petitioners have committed the offence. Petitioners are accused nos.1, 3 and 4. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. On considering the rival contentions, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, if petitioners surrender before the Magistrate court concerned and move an application under Section 437 Cr.P.C., it shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible on merit, untrammelled by any of the observations made in this order on merit. The crime is registered as early as on 09.02.2008 and more than a year has elapsed. Hence, the following order is passed : i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer or the Magistrate court concerned without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender B.A.No.7729 of 2008 3 or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac