IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6037 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.208/08 OF KELAKAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. BINU VADAKKEKOOTTU, S/O.VARGHESE, VALAYAMCHAL, KANICHAR. 2. VADAKKEKOOTTU VINOD, S/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING -DO- 3. SHINOJ VADAKKEKOTTU, RESIDING -DO- 4. UNNI @ SHIJITH VADAKKEKOTTU, S/O.ALEXANDER, VALAYANCHAL, KANICHAR, 5. DEVASSIA VADAKKEKOTTU, S/O.MATHAI, DO. 6. CHINNAMMA VARGHESE, W/O.LATE VARGHESE, DO. 7. JIJI VINOD @ BIJU, W/O.VINOD, DO. 8. EALIYAMMA ALEX, W/O.ALEX, RESIDING DO. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KELAKAM POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP; BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6037 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147 and 353 read with Section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, on 29.8.2008, at about 2 a.m., police party went to the house of first accused and he was arrested in connection with crime no.207/083. While he was taken out of the house, accused in this case resisted him being taken away and he was rescued by other accused. For this purpose, they used criminal force against the Sub Inspector and three police constables which included a Vanitha Police Constable also. Therefore, a crime was registered on the basis of a statement given by the Sub Inspector of Police. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the allegations made against petitioners are absolutely false. According to him, petitioners 1 to 4 are accused in crime no.207/08 of the same police station. In fact, they were attacked by the defacto complainant in the said case and a crime was registered as crime no.206/08 on the basis of a statement given by the first accused herein. The said incident occurred on BA No.6037/2008 2 24.8.2008. The defacto complainant did not sustain any serious injury in the said incident, but, the first accused sustained a bone-deep incised wound on his scalp measuring 10x2 cm. by use of a chopper. 4. The accused apprehended that the defacto complainant may again come to the petitioners to attack them and hence, they deliberately kept themselves away from the residence. While so on 29.8.2008, police party came to the house at 2 a.m. and wanted to arrest the accused in crime no.207/08. But, petitioners 1 to 4, who are accused in the said case, were not available in the house and this information was conveyed to the Sub Inspector by the inmates of the house. But, the Sub Inspector was not convinced about it and under the influence of the defacto complainant, who is a worker of CPI(M), the ruling political party, persuaded him to register a crime against all the inmates of the house including family members. 5. So, all these persons 1 to 8 who include women also are arrayed as accused in the present crime. It is also pointed out that though only a minor injury was sustained by the defacto complainant in the incident relating to crime nos.206 and BA No.6037/2008 3 207/08, a crime was registered against petitioners deliberately including offence under Section 308 IPC. In such circumstances, if the petitioners are arrested, they will be harassed by the police and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that though the police party consisted of a Sub Inspector and three police constables, none of them were injured. Though criminal force was allegedly used by the inmates of the house including the accused, they were also not injured. This itself is an indication that nothing had happened in the house, it is submitted. 6. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that this case involves use of criminal force on the police party by the accused, while they were discharging the official duty and there is no reason why the allegations are not accepted. It is not correct to say that the allegations are false. The accused could not be arrested, only because the accused in this case resisted the arrest, and rescued the first accused. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 7. On hearing both sides evaluating the circumstances BA No.6037/2008 4 under which the crime nos. 206 and 207/08 were registered and the various facts brought to my notice by learned counsel for petitioners, I am satisfied that if anticipatory bail is not granted, it is likely that petitioners will suffer irreparable injury and loss. Therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail and hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioners 1 to 5 shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned and they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. (ii) Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl