IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7857 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 751/08 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION) ............. PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 & 2: --------------------------------------------- 1. DEEPU, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, DEEPA BHAVANAM, PARAVUR MURI, PIRAVAMTHUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SHAJI, S/O. VASUDEVAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, MANJALOOR MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SMT.C.M.CHARISMA, SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTINGS S.I. OF POLICE, PATHANANAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVA KUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.7857 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 353 and 34 of I.P.C. read with Sections 20 and 21 of the Kerala River Bank Protection and Regulation of Sand Act. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused nos.1 and 2) allegedly prevented the defacto complainant/village officer from discharging his official duty. The defacto complainant found that illegal river sand being transported in a lorry by first accused and he seized the lorry and he got into the lorry. The lorry was being taken to the police station while second accused followed the lorry in a motor cycle and he also got into the lorry and thereafter, the driver was pushed out of the lorry. The defacto complainant is a village officer and the person who was pushed out of the lorry is the UD Clerk. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The U.D. clerk wanted money from the accused and they were B.A.No.7857 of 2008 2 not prepared to give the same. Hence, a false complaint is lodged alleging that they tried to kill the officials etc. Offence under Section 308 of I.P.C. was included originally and it was subsequently deleted by the police itself. There is no case that the U.D. clerk was pushed out but he was only allowed to get out of the vehicle. Hence, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted opposed this bail application and contended that in the nature of allegations, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides and on considering the nature of the allegations made, I do not find it fit to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature. The facts pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners are not sufficient for me to invoke provisions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No special circumstances are pointed out for granting anticipatory bail. The incident occurred as early as on 05.12.2008 and petitioners are not available for arrest. B.A.No.7857 of 2008 3 Petitioners are, therefore, directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac