IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6244 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.1802/2008 IN CRIME NO.46/08 OF THIRUNELLY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER (S): 10TH ACCUSED -------------------------------- AHAMMED, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN, VATTIKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, PONOOR, THAMARASSERY, NOW RESIDING AT MANCHINGAL HOUSE, CHENNALODE.P.O, PADINJARETHARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THERUNELLY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, ALONG WITH BA NO. 6252 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.Nos.6244 & 6252 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 O R D E R These petitions are for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 395 IPC. Petitioner in B.A.No.6244/08 is accused no.10 and petitioner in B.A.No.6252/08 is accused no.4 in the crime. According to prosecution, an estate having an extent of 246 acres was sold to defacto complainant by virtue of 9 sale deeds. Thereafter, there was a dispute with respect to an extent of land worth Rs.60 lakhs, since Forest Officials made a claim over some extent of property. The defacto complainant insisted that said claim should be settled within six months, in which event, he was ready to pay Rs.60 lakhs also. But, this was not done. Instead, the accused, made the mother of the first accused to stay in the bungalow in the estate and thereafter, accused 30 in number trespassed into the property and committed offence under Section 395 IPC by robbing 35 tons of coffee and 1.5 tons of pepper kept in the estate godown which is worth about BA Nos.6244 & 6252/2008 2 Rs.20 lakhs. Vehicle was also used for the commission of the said offence. On a complaint made by the defacto complainant, a crime was registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute is only of a civil nature. There was a sale agreement and some breach of conditions. But, a criminal complaint is lodged against various persons including petitioners. Petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The 4th accused is only a student who is studying for M.B.A. in Bangalore and he had come to meet his grand mother in the estate bungalow, on his way back from Bangalore. He was falsely implicated though he has nothing to do with the estate or in the sale. 4. It is also submitted that A10 is working as a writer in Krishnagiri estate, which is situated nearby and he has no role in the offence. It is also pointed out that no crime was registered by police originally, on the ground that there was only a civil dispute. Later, defacto complainant approached this court by filing a Crl.M.C. and this Court dismissed the petition and thereafter, learned Magistrate directed the DYSP to conduct an investigation into this crime. Grandmother of the fourth accused BA Nos.6244 & 6252/2008 3 expired and he could not even attend the 41st ceremony. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the presence of A4 and A10 at scene is clearly revealed from records. The allegation made against A10 is that he aided the accused to remove the stolen articles to Krishnagiri estate and it was from there that the articles were later removed. He has specific role in the offence. Against the 4th accused also allegations are made that he was present at the scene and that he participated in the offence. It is not correct to say that A4 and A10 has no role at all. 6. Even according to learned counsel for petitioners, A4 has no right over the property and the property did not belong to him and therefore, he had no justification in going to the scene of occurrence when there was a serious dispute. It was also pointed out that after having executed sale deeds and not having settled the dispute with respect to the property worth Rs.60 lakhs, defacto complainant is entitled to enjoy the property. But, huge quantity of coffee and pepper were robbed from the property. It is also submitted that only some of the accused are arrested and others are yet to be arrested. On the nature of BA Nos.6244 & 6252/2008 4 allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 7. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, particularly the materials available in the case diary and the specific allegations made against both the petitioners and also considering the nature of investigation required, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. These petitions are dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl