IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4803 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.372/08 OF KEEZHVAYIPOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------ VINOD KUMAR, S/O RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, VELLAMAVUNKAL,KOLABHAGAM P.O., MALLAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAYIPOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4803 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 379 IPC. According to the prosecution, on 9.7.2008, at about 12.30 p.m., on a working day, the defacto complainant seized petitioner's mini lorry on the allegation that sand was carried in the lorry, in violation to the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Bank and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act 2001 (the Act, for short). The vehicle was kept in the premises of the Taluk office. It is further alleged that at about 1.30 p.m., on the same day, petitioner who is the registered owner of the vehicle went to Taluk Office premises and made false representations to the two peons of the office that the Tahsildar had allowed the petitioner to take the battery of the vehicle, and the petitioner fraudulently took away the battery of his own vehicle and committed offence under Section 379 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. This is BA No.4803/08 2 an offshoot of a rivalry between the petitioner and the Tahsildar, who is the defacto complainant herein, in respect of seizure of another vehicle. It is submitted that the petitioner's mother's lorry was seized on allegation of violation of the same Act and it was not released to the owner. Therefore, petitioner moved this Court in writ petition no.19991/07 for getting the vehicle released. As per the judgment dated 9.7.2007, this Court directed the District Collector to release the vehicle on condition that the owner of the vehicle deposits Rs.25,000/-. 4. The petitioner along with his mother went to the District Collector's Office while they were informed that they have to approach the Tahsildar, Mallappally for release of the vehicle. When they approached the Tahsildar, she was not ready to accept Rs.25,000/- and release the vehicle as ordered by this Court. Therefore, petitioner approached this Court again and as per Annexure AII contempt case (c) no.1575/07, this Court passed an order on 3.12.2007 as follows: “The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahsildar is taking a recalcitrant attitude and is refusing to receive the amount of Rs.25,000/- when offered. The learned Government Pleader dispute this. The learned BA No.4803/08 3 counsel for the petitioner is ready with Rs.25,000/- in cash. The Tahsildar is also present. Learned counsel for the petitioner hand over the cash to the learned Government Pleader. The respondents shall release the vehicle forthwith.” Thereafter, the Tahsildar was forced to come to this Court and collect the money from the Government Pleader and release the vehicle to the petitioner, it is submitted. This had offended the Tahsildar and hence, the petitioner's lorry, which was having a permit was seized by the Tahsildar. Annexure AI is the permit in respect of the said lorry. The lorry was taken to the premises of the Taluk Office and the Tahsildar came to know that there is a valid permit. To evade any action being taken against her for illegal seizure of the vehicle, this false complaint is lodged against the petitioner, it is submitted. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is difficult to believe that in the broad day light, at about 1.30 p.m., during lunch time, the petitioner who is the RC owner would dare to enter and remove the battery, which would require reasonable time. If at all the petitioner had acted in the manner alleged, it is likely that any one of the officials will see this and it BA No.4803/08 4 will be reported to the authorities concerned and the removal of the battery can be immediately prevented. But, the present story is a concocted story which is fabricated only to create problems to petitioner, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that the peons who allegedly allowed the petitioner to remove the battery even now continue in the same office of the Tahsildar. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner also pointed out that the alleged incident happened on 9.7.2008 and the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 1.30 p.m. But, it is conceded that the FIR was registered only two days thereafter the alleged lodging of the complaint. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is difficult to believe again when a complaint of this nature is made to the police by an authority like Tahsildar, there will be such inordinate delay in registration of the FIR. According to him, all these facts point out that a belated complaint is raised against the petitioner, which is absolutely false, it is submitted. 7. In the light of the very serious allegations made, this court summoned the Tahsildar to this Court. She appeared before this Court today and learned public prosecutor submitted that the allegations made against the Tahsildar are not fully BA No.4803/08 5 correct. The earlier seizure of the lorry of the petitioner's mother was not effected by the Tahsildar. It was a seizure by the Sub Inspector. The Tahsildar had nothing to do with it and she came to know about the proceedings only when the Tahsildar was informed by the Collector to go to the High Court and receive the money as directed by this Court. She, accordingly, came to the GPs' office and received the money and took steps to release the vehicle. She came to this Court only as per the directions of the District Collector. She was not aware of any of the proceedings before this court, it is submitted, especially since she was not a party to the proceedings. 8. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is more than a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is strange that in the premises of a Tahsildar's office, an incident of this nature had happened. Tahsildar is the custodian of the vehicle and once a seizure is made, it is her responsibility and concern to keep the vehicle in safe custody. It is relevant to note that though the petitioner has raised a complaint that the Tahsildar has refused to release the vehicle as directed by the High Court, Tahsildar has kept mum against the petitioner for making such false allegations before this Court. The crime was BA No.4803/08 6 registered only after two days and the peons at whose connivance the battery was removed still continue in the same office. It is better, I maintain judicial restraint and I do not make any further comments regarding the responsibility of the Tahsildar. 9. Anyway, I am persuaded by the facts and circumstances to grant anticipatory bail and the following order is passed: The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and he is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest, if any, on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate court concerned on condition that he will co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl