IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3051 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRMP.407/2010 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED --------------------------------------- VIPEESH, S/O.SAMBAN, VIPEESH BHAVAN, PORUNTHAMON, PULIMATH VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZH. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION, KILIMANOOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.3051 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This is a petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 353 r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, an accident occurred in front of defacto complainant's house involving three vehicles. One of the vehicles hit compound wall of petitioner's property and caused damage to compound wall. This was on 21.3.2010. On the same day at about 8.30 pm police party, including Sub Inspector and two other police officials went to the place of occurrence and wanted to remove the car which was hit against the compound wall of petitioner's property. At that time, three persons including petitioner (A2) came there and stated that they will not allow the car to be removed until the compound wall is repaired and thereby they obstructed the public servant from execution of their official duty. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. Two persons had came to the B.A. No.3051/10 2 place of occurrence by about 8.30pm and tried to remove the car. The petitioner told them that petitioner has to be paid the damages and then only car can be removed. Petitioner was under the impression that those persons were having interest in the car. But later police party came there with pick-up van to remove the car. It was only then petitioner knew that the persons who had came earlier were also police officials. Petitioner did not do anything against police officials. Hence anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations made in the first information statement, at the time of occurrence, Sub Inspector and police constable had gone to the place of occurrence with a pick-up van and when they were attempting to remove the same, petitioners and others obstructed police party and hence crime was registered. It is also submitted that charge is laid. 5. On hearing both sides and going through first information statement, it appears that no criminal use was used by any person to any public servant and assault was also not made. The accused have only stated that they would not allow the car to be removed until compound wall is repaired. To attract sec.353 of B.A. No.3051/10 3 IPC assault or criminal force is required. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that Petitioner can be granted bail on condition. Hence the following order is passed: Petitioner shall appear before Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent securities each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on condition that petitioner shall not tamper with evidence. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.