IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4778 of 2008() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.203/2008 OF THE VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4, 8 & 9 : ------------------------------------------------- 1. C.S. SUNIL (A1), S/O. SUKUMARAN, AGED 22, CHANDRAVILASAM HOUSE,VANDANMEDU.P.O, AMAYAR. 2. MONCY BABY (A2), S/O. VARKEY BABY, AGED 25, OTTAPLACKAL HOUSE, VANDANMEDU.P.O, AMAYAR. 3. SIVAMOORTHY (A3), S/O. KICHAMANI, PUTHUPARAMBIL COLONY, KADASAKADAVU, PAMPUMPARA, IDUKKI. 4. SANKAR (A4) S/O. AZHAKAN, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, KADASAKADAVU, PAMPUMPARA, IDUKKI. 5. ASHRAF (A8) S/O. KHADER, THENNECHERIYIL HOUSE, KADASAKADAVU.P.O, PAMPUMPARA, IDUKKI. 6. BENOY (A9), S/O. DOMINIC, AGED 32, ANCHERIYIL HOUSE, VANDANMEDU.P.O, AMAYAR. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR Bail Appl..No. 4778 of 2008 RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4778 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 144, 451, 332 and 342 read with Section 149 IPC. Petitioners are A1 to 4, 8 and 9 in the crime. According to the prosecution, petitioners and others formed into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the office of the Warehousing Corporation and assaulted the employees who were present in the office on a harthal day. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the co-accused 5 to 7 were granted bail. Even as per the allegations in the First Information Statement, only A1 to A4 were inside the building and others were standing outside and shouting slogans and they have not committed any offence. No injuries were sustained by anybody. It is also submitted that the petitioners only wanted the office to be closed being a harthal day and nothing else as alleged had taken place. 4. This petition is opposed. It is submitted by learned BA No.4778/08 2 public prosecutor that the incident happened on a harthal day. Petitioners wanted to cause obstruction to the employees in the Warehousing Corporation and they wanted the office to be closed. 5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the incident occurred on a harthal day and that the petitioners have nothing to do with the Warehousing Corporation or its office. They are outsiders. They have not gone there for doing anything in connection with the Warehousing Corporation. “Banth” is prohibited by this Court and it is relevant to note that the alleged activities of petitioners were in connection with the harthal, with a view to prevent the employees in the Warehousing Corporation from carrying on with the official work. I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl