IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5019 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.158/2008 OF BADIADUKKA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------- RAMAKRISHNA RAJ S/O.MANJAPPA RAJ KUDUA HOUSE, PERIA.PO., KASARAGOD BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CRIME NO.158/2008 OF BADIADUKKA POLICE STATION KASARAGOD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 5019 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 448 read with Sections 3(1) of P.D.P.P. Act. According to prosecution, on 29.7.2008 at 3 a.m. the petitioner along with 20 other D.Y.F.I. workers wrongfully trespassed into the Panchayat sitting hall of Enmagaje Panchayat and caused damages to the chairs and glasses and thereby caused loss of Rs.15,000/-. Petitioner is the first accused in the crime. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he is falsely implicated in the crime, since he is the local secretary of the CPI(M) and the Chairman of the Education Samrakshana Samithi. The Panchayat is led by the UDF. Petitioner's Samithi is conducting classes relating to VIIth standard text book and the de facto complainant is motivated against the petitioner for this reason also. It is also submitted that the petitioner was standing as a by-stander to a patient in the hospital at the alleged time of occurrence. [B.A.No.5019/08] 2 3. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted submitted that the petitioner's name is mentioned in the F.I.R. itself and on the nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant discretionary remedy under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that on the facts of this case, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petitioner's alleged innocence is not prima facie probabilsed also. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.