IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7279 of 2008(B) -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.2631/2008 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 AND 5 : ----------------------------------------- 1. JOTHISH.K.J, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. JOSE, KALARICKAL HOUSE, EDEPPURAM, ASOKAPURAM.P.O, ALUVA. 2. SUDHEESH, AGD 32 YEARS, S/O. ARJUNAN, PURAPPEL HOUSE, EDEPPURAM, ASOKAPURAM.P.O, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.7279 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, defacto complainant belongs to another locality. When he purchased a paddy land in the locality where the petitioners are working, petitioners started demanding money from him. The defacto complainant refused to pay money. Ultimately Rs.25,000/- demanded. That was also refused. Therefore, they trespassed into the paddy field of the defacto complainant and cut and removed 25 plantain trees and 5 coconut seedlings in the property. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are accused nos. 3 and 5. They are members of a Padasekharam Committee. They were agitating against filling up of paddy field. Defacto complainant filled up paddy field and planted plantain trees etc. in the property. A complaint was given, as Annexure A1, to the District Collector in which petitioners also signed. Later action was taken by District Collector and the report has been published in the newspaper B.A.7279 of 2008 2 and the copy is Annexure A2. In such circumstances, defacto complainant filed a false complaint before the police, it is submitted. It is also submitted that the Investigating Officer, C.I. of Police, Aluva, is a close relative of the defacto complainant and hence a false complaint is foisted against petitioners. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that all the documents produced in this case relate to a date subsequent to the date of incident. As per the allegations in the F.I. Statement, money was demanded on 17.10.2008 but the complaint was given to the District Collector as per Annexure A1 only 3 days thereafter. The paper report also shows that it was published in November, 2008, much after the incident. It is also submitted that if the petitioners were genuine in their agitation, petitioners ought not to have acted in the manner alleged in the complaint. They could have take action in accordance with law. Learned Public Prosecutor denied the allegation of false implication and submitted that accused were implicated on the basis of a complaint given by the defacto complainant. B.A.7279 of 2008 3 On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioners cannot take law to their own hands and act in the manner alleged. The crime was registered as early as on 17.10.2008 and petitioners are required for the purpose of investigation. Petitioners are therefore directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation without any delay. Whether they surrender or not, arrest would proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac