IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6058 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.314/08 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. BIJUMON, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, PUTHUPARAMPIL, KOTTAMURI, PAYIPPAD. 2. PRASAD, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL, KOTTAMURI, PAYIPPAD. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6058 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 353 and 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 7.6.2008, illegal sand mining was carried on by the first and the second accused and it was transported in lorry. When the defacto complainant, who is the Sub Collector, chased the lorry, another lorry was driven in between the two vehicles and an attempt was made to hit the vehicle, in which the defacto complainant was travelling. An attempt was made thereby to block the lorry from being intercepted. The lorry in which sand was transported, could not be stopped. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are accused nos. 3 and 4, who are registered owners of the lorry. The first and second accused who were driving lorry were granted bail. Petitioners are made accused only because they are happened to be the registered owners, it is submitted. It is also submitted that common intention is not involved in the offence. The incident occurred on 7.6.2008, but, the FIR was BA No.6058 /2008 2 registered only on 11.6.2008, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the crime was committed at the instance of the third and the fourth accused, who are owners of the lorry. It is also submitted that investigation is at the early stage and without interrogation of petitioners will be necessary for an effective investigation. On the facts of the case, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, considering the nature of allegations made. Petitioners are required for interrogation and the crime is registered as early as on 10.6.2008, about more than 5 months back. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation without any delay. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl