IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16532 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR.B., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.T.P.BALAN, ANITHA BHAVAN, VARAPUZHA, OLANADU (P.O)., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SEEMA K.M., W/O.ANIL KUMAR.B., ANITHA BHAVAN, VARAPUZHA, OLANADU (P.O)., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ' TRIPUNITHURA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON 06/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.16532 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhvadasan, J, This is a petition filed seeking police protection. 2. First petitioner would say that he was an employee of M/s. Max New York Life Insurance Company Ltd. During April 2009, the police arrested the first petitioner alleging that he was involved in theft of idols. Crime No.504 of 2009 had been registered under Section 41(1)(d) and Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Petitioner along with few others were arrested in relation to Crime No.16 of 2002. First petitioner and others were released on bail by the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. There was a condition in the said bail order that the accused persons should appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. In Crime No.504 of 2009, the first petitioner was released on bail. According to the petitioners, even after having been released on bail, the police officers are continuously harassing the petitioners. The police officers WPC. 16532/2009. 2 threatening the petitioners that the first petitioner will be implicated in more crimes. Due to the continuous threat and harassment from the police, the first petitioner is unable to carry on his life. Therefore, they sought for an order restraining the respondents from unnecessarily harassing the petitioners. 3. The learned Government Pleader has filed a statement in this case. It shows that the first petitioner is involved in several crimes including a crime for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code also. The claim of the petitioners that police are harassing them is untrue. 4. In the light of the statement filed by the Government Pleader, the claim of the petitioners that they are being unnecessarily harassed cannot be accepted. One cannot omit to note that the first petitioner is involved in several crimes including a serious crime, namely, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The first petitioner would say that due to the harassment meted out to him by the police, he is unable to comply with the condition in the order granting WPC. 16532/2009. 3 bail to report before the investigating officer on every Monday and Friday between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. 5. The purpose of filing this petition is therefore quite obvious. If as a matter of fact, the first petitioner was unable to comply with the direction, he ought to have approached the court, which granted bail and submit the true state of affairs. Instead, he chose to remain at home. Such conduct cannot be accepted. In the light of the fact that the first petitioner is involved in several crimes and also that he had failed to comply with the condition imposed, this is not a fit case where relief should be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.