IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4265 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.3249/2009 Dated 16/06/2009 CRIME NO.144/CR/KTM/07 OF CRIME BRANCH, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------------------------- RAGUPATHY, D 3, IST BLOCK, 'INDRAPRASHTHA' APARTMENTS, 5TH MAIN, OMBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4265 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.144/CR/KTM/2007 of Crime Branch, Kottayam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 295 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Accused No.1, Unnikrishna Panicker, was granted anticipatory bail as per the order dated 16/06/2009. 4. The gist of the prosecution case is as follows: In June 2006, Devaprasnam was held at Sabarimala. 21 Astrologers participated in the Devaprasnam. It was headed by Unnikrishna Panicker. He revealed in the Devaprasnam that a woman above the age of 10 years and below the age of 50 years had entered into the Sanctum Sanctorum of the temple and touched the idol of lord Ayyappa. The case is that Unnikrishna Panicker had personal knowledge that cine actress from Karnataka, namely, Jayamala had entered the Sanctum Sanctorum of the temple. It is stated that Unnikrishna Panicker revealed the same in the Devaprasnam without B.A. No. 4265 /2009 Page numbers stating the name of the person, as if it was revealed in the Devaprasnam. According to the prosecution, this was for gaining name and fame. The petitioner herein, Ragupathy, is a close associate of Unnikrishna Panicker. It is alleged that he informed the cine actress Jayamala to communicate to the Devaswom about the incident which occurred earlier and to perform the Pariharam. Accordingly, the cine actress sent a fax message to the Devaswom. 5. The media reported the incident. This news became an item of discussion at various quarters for several days. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in 2007, he was summoned by the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam and he appeared before the Superintendent of Police. The petitioner was questioned and all the facts were revealed by him. According to the petitioner, there is no need to arrest and detain him in the case. It is also contended that even if all the allegations are taken as true, Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. Section 295 provides that 'whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the B.A. No. 4265 /2009 Page numbers knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.' It is submitted that there is no case of any destruction, damage or defilement of any place of worship or any object held sacred so as to attract Section 295. While disposing of the application for anticipatory bail, I do not think that it is proper to consider this contention to arrive at a conclusion in either way. Any decision or finding would cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the defence. The stage for considering the same would arise at the time of trial or even in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Bail Application. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances and taking note of the fact that anticipatory bail was granted to the first accused, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. At the same time, the petitioner shall appear before the police for interrogation as and when summoned for that purpose. There will be a direction that in the B.A. No. 4265 /2009 Page numbers event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required. B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm