IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2596 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.191/2010 OF THAMARASSERYM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. SHAJIMON,S/O.MOIN KUTTY,AGED 23 YEARS, CHEERAN THODIAKA,PALOTH,POOVATTUKAL,ERNAD TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. KABIR.N.C,S/O.AVARANKUTTY,25 YEARS, AMBALAIYIL,PALOTHPOOVATTUKAL,ERNAD TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA RPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.2596 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 353, 506(1) r/w 149 of IPC. According to prosecution, the Sub Inspector of police and party intercepted a lorry in which illegal sand was being transported on 26/03/2010 at about 9 p.m. The driver and cleaner who were inside the lorry, who are the petitioners(A1 and A2), criminally intimidated de facto complainant and they tried to drive away the vehicle. At this time, a group of people gathered there and they also helped petitioners to escape with the vehicle. In the course of the incident, sand was thrown to de facto complainant and thereby petitioners committed various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that offence under Section 353 IPC is not involved in this case. In a notice issued to the owner of the vehicle, in connection with the release of the vehicle, there is absolutely no whisper about any assault or any criminal force having been used by petitioners. Hence offence under Section 353 IPC is not attracted, it is submitted. No obstruction to the official duty of de facto complainant and lorry was immediately seized, it is submitted. B.A No.2596 OF 2010 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not a case where assault or criminal force was used. In fact, as per the allegations in the FIS, which is filed as early as on the same day of offence, it is clearly stated that sand was thrown against de facto complainant. This was done, with a view to prevent him from seizing the lorry and arresting the petitioners. It is also pointed out that the notice which is referred to petitioner's counsel was issued only subsequently to registration of crime and at all there is an omission in the notice to state the details which are already stated in the FIS, it will be of no consequence. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by Learned Public Prosecutor. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are bound to surrender to law and co-operate with investigation. 6. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv