IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6476 of 2008() ------------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.409/2008 OF KANJIRAPPALLI POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT) PETITIONERS: ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. C.K.SAJI, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, CHENCHERIL HOUSE, VIZHIKKATHODU, KOTTAYAM. 2. RAJESH, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, RAJESH BHAVAN, VIZHIKKATHODU, KOTTAYAM. 3. BABU, S/O.SUKUMARA PILLAI, CHENCHERIL HOUSE, VIZHIKKATHODU, KOTTAYAM. 4. C.K.ANILKUMAR @ ANI, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, CHENCHERIL HOUSE, VIZHIKKATHODU, KOTTAYAM. 5. K.P.VIJAYAN, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI, KATTUVETTICKAL HOUSE, PANACHAYAPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6476 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 323, 274(b), 427 and 149 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners allegedly assaulted defacto complainant after forming into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and committed mischief also. They also committed robbery and one Sivan Pillai lost Rs.2,000/- and defacto complainant lost Rs.520/-. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there was some dispute between DYFI and members of the action council, regarding pasting of posters in connection with celebration of 250th day of agitation by the action council. The protest was against installation of a Solid Waste Disposal Plant. It is submitted that prosecution originally had no case that any offence under Section 394 IPC was committed. There were only bailable offences, and petitioners 1 and 2 were granted bail also. BA No.6476/2008 2 But, now offence under Section 394 IPC is added, deliberately with a view to harass petitioners, due to political intervention. If the petitioners are arrested in connection with a non bailable offence, they will suffer irreparable loss and injury, it is submitted. It is also submitted that there was a search in connection with the incident and no amount was recovered. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor pointed out that originally offence under Section 394 IPC was not included, since as per the First Information Statement, it was only mentioned that during the course of incident, Rs.2520/- were lost from two persons. But, later, one Sivan Pillai gave a complaint stating that his statement was not correctly recorded by the police, with a view to help the assailants. He was again questioned and he clearly stated that money was forcibly taken away from his pocket. In such circumstances, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, it may appear that there was some complaints against police officials about recording of the statement correctly. This complaint was raised at the early stage itself. So, any omission or irregularity on the part of the BA No.6476/2008 3 investigation cannot be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail, eventhough offence under Section 395 IPC was included only subsequently. On consideration of the nature of allegations made, I do not find it fit to grant anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that the custodial interrogation of petitioners are required for the purpose of recovery of the alleged stolen article. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl