IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6240 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.563/2009 OF VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION PETITIONERS (S): ACCUSED -------------------- 1. SANTHOSH, 42 YEARS, S/O. EYYANI KOROTH SANKARAN, NADUVILKKARA, VADANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. ANIL KUMAR, 37 YEARS, ASHOKAN, KARIKKNTRA, VADANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT 3. RAJAN, 63 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, CHANASSERY HOUSE, VADANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. SURENDRAN, 64 YEARS, CHERKKARA TNADAYAN, S/O. APPUKUTTAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. PRADEEP, AGED 47 YEARS, PANDARAN, S/O. VASU, VADANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. RAMESH, 39 YEARS, CHULLIYIL, S/O. SREEDARAN, VADANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6240 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, on 24.7.2008, at about 5.15 p.m., when the Amin and Advocate Commissioner, reached the property involved in O.S.No.300/04 for demolishing basement to the banyan tree, as directed by the Munsiff, petitioners caused obstruction to them by forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed various offences and a crime was registered under Sections 143, 145, 147 and 353 read with Section 149 IPC on the complaint made by the Amin. The direction was issued by the Munsiff, since the basement was constructed in violation of an order of status quo and hence, it was ordered to be removed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a status quo order and basement was constructed. But, the petitioners were not aware of the status quo order. It was also submitted that no obstruction was caused to the Amin BA No.6240/08 2 and the Advocate Commissioner by petitioners because they are not parties to the suit. They only questioned the Amin and the Advocate Commissioner when they came to the premises of a temple, since the disputed property is a portion of the temple premises. By the time, both parties to the suit came to the spot and it was informed that an appeal is pending. On the very next day, in an appeal, the order of the Munsiff was stayed. Hence, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the offence committed by the petitioners affect the administration of justice. The defacto complainant and the Advocate Commissioner had come to the spot as per the direction of the Munsiff Court. But, they were prohibited from carrying out the directions given by the Munsiff Court. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the court's direction could not be complied with by the Amin and the Advocate commissioner because of the alleged intervention of the petitioners. It is true that on the very next day, the order was stayed by the appellate court. But, apparently, it may not BA No.6240/08 3 be a justification for the allegation of commission of the offence. Considering the nature of allegations made, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The incident happened as early as on 24.7.2008 and the petitioners were not available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl