IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2008 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.72/2010 OF PERUMPETTY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. (S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE MATHEW, KIDAYITHARAYIL HOUSE, ANGADICAL P.O., CHENGANNUR-689 122. 2. PAPPEN K.M., KIDAYITHARAYIL HOUSE, VYTAD ROAD, KUTTAPUZHA P.O., THIRUVALLA-689 103. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.MANU TOM RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, PERUMPETTY POLICE STATION, PERUMPETTY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2008 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 12th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, a book by name “Chinvad Palam” was written by one Shamu Coimbatore and he died on 17.3.2010. His funeral was arranged on 22.3.2010 and during the funeral services, the controversial book which contain blasphemous statements, which were calculated to injure religious feelings of Muslim community were distributed to the Pentecost and Muslim communities. Speeches were also made at the venue and thereby accused Nos.1 to 7 committed various offences. 3. The first petitioner is the 8th accused in the crime. He made a speech at a funeral function, justifying the publication of the book. He also stated that the said book is an answer to the provocation speech made by the Muslims etc. The said speech was video-graphed and the video C.D. was seized. Thereby all the accused committed the above offences. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the BA NO. 2008/10 2 allegations made against first petitioner are serious, but so far as second petitioner is concerned, he is not involved in the crime and the police is not intending to arrest him. These submissions are recorded. Hence, second petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail, since there can be no apprehension of his arrest. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that first petitioner, who is now implicated as 8th accused is prepared to surrender before the court below and seek regular bail. He also submitted that he is withdrawing the petition, in so far as it relates to first petitioner. 6. On hearing both sides, the following order is passed: (1) The request for anticipatory bail by second petitioner is rejected. (2) The petition, in so far as it relates to first petitioner is dismissed as withdrawn. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs