IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3075 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1014/2010 0F ALUVA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 : -------------------------------- MUJEEB, S/O. ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 32 YEARS, KAKKATTU VEEDU, CHALACKAL, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010 ALONG WITH B.A. NO. 3076/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. Nos. 3075 & 3076 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 279 and 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 17(4) and 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. According to prosecution, first accused was driving a lorry which contained illicit river sand. The police party tried to stop the vehicle, but he did not stop the vehicle and drove vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against another vehicle. The police officials were deterred from doing the duty. Second accused is the owner of the lorry. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that second accused was not present in the lorry and he has not commit any of the offences alleged. First accused is also innocent of the allegation made. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor conceded that as against second accused, offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code will not lie, since he was not present at the scene and he is B.A. Nos. 3075 & 3076 of 2010 2 the owner of the lorry. All other offences alleged are bailable. But as far as the first accused is concerned, there are serious allegations against him and it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to him, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, on considering the serious nature of allegations made, I find that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to petitioners. However, as far as second accused is concerned, offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code will not lie and other offences are bailable. He may surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or the police and seek appropriate remedy. These petitions are disposed of. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln