IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6066 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23896/2007 Dated 06/08/2007 CRIME NO.1125/2009 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S)/ ACCUSED NO.1: -------------------------------------------- V.V.PAUL, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, VAZHAPPALLY, OLLOOKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6066 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 21.10.2009, the following order was passed: “The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1125/2009 of Chalakudy Police Station, Thrissur. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 3. The allegation is that the accused persons tampered with the Government property and committed mischief and thereby caused loss to the Government. In Paragraph 4 of the Bail Application, it is stated thus: “The petitioner was not aware of the fact that the pathway leading to the hotel was through the Government land. He was made to believe by the Management of the Hotel that the pathway is of the hotel and there are favourable orders in this regard from the courts. The petitioner who bonafidely believed the above facts, directed his employees to unload some quarry powder in the pathway B.A. No. 6066 of 2009 2 also in order to level it. The pathway was in a very bad condition where it was very difficult to drive vehicles. The petitioner's employees only filled the gutters in the pathway with quarry powder. The alleged damage caused to the foundation stones was due to the running of the lorry over it. Whatever it may be, the petitioner had no malafide intention in the matter. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of commission of the alleged offence. The petitioner was in another site. The petitioner's employees filled the gutters with quarry powder for the purpose of making the pathway useful for taking the lorry to the hotel premises.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if an opportunity is given to the petitioner, he would be able to establish before the investigating agency that he is absolutely innocent of the incident and that the facts stated in the Paragraph (4) of the Bail Application are true. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be afforded to the B.A. No. 6066 of 2009 3 petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 27th and 28th October, 2009. Post on 3/11/2009. 6. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.1125 of 2009 of Chalakudy Police Station, Thrissur. 7. It is made clear that the appearance of the petitioner before the investigating officer would not be a ground for allowing the application for anticipatory bail and shall be considered on merits at the time of hearing. Hand over copy to both sides” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has complied with the directions in the order dated 21.10.2009.The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner has disclosed the facts of the case and has furnished the relevant information. B.A. No. 6066 of 2009 4 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln