IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3510 of 2010()
1. ABDUL RAHMAN C.H., S/O. KALANTHAN,
... Petitioner
2. SAMEER, S/O. AMMAD, AGED 28,
3. SALEEL, S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 33,
4. FIROZ, S/O. POKKER, AGED 24,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :21/06/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J
----------------------
B.A.No.3510 OF 2010
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under section 436 IPC. According to
prosecution, petitioners set fire to a thatched shed on 19.5.2010 at
1.45 am and thereby causing damage to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.
3. According to learned counsel for petitioners, there is a civil
dispute between the parties in respect of a way leading to the house
of the defacto complainant through petitioner’s property. An interim
injunction order is obtained by 1st petitioner, as per annexure-1 order
against defacto complainant and others. Thereafter defacto
complainant, with the support of political party (C.P.I.M), started
harassing the petitioner and the workers of the first accused were
assaulted and a complaint was made to the police and case was
registered u/s.324, 294(b) and 34 IPC.
4. Since the defacto complainant continued such illegal
activities, first accused applied for police protection before the Sub
B.A. No.3510/10 2
Inspector of Police (annexure -III). There was also an attempt to
destroy a compound wall and defacto complainant intimidated
stating that first accused’s arms will be cut off etc. After filing
annexure -III, posters appeared indicating threat against first
accused from CPI(M). Thereafter, a complaint was lodged stating
that a thatched shed was set fired to by petitioners. Actually,
defacto complainant and his people set fire to the thatched shed
by themselves, but a false complaint is filed against petitioners to
harass them. If they are arrested, they will suffer irreparable
injury and loss especially since defacto complainant is supported
by ruling party. It is pointed out that name of the petitioner does
not find a place in the FI statement.
5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public
prosecutor submitted that petitioners’ involvement is revealed
from the statement given by various witnesses in the case diary.
An autorikshaw driver had seen petitioner leaving the place in a
car, after committing the offence on 19.5.2010 at about 1.45am.
The crime is being investigated into and if petitioners are granted
bail, it will adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted.
6. On hearing both sides, it appears that there is a civil
dispute between the parties and petitioners had obtained orders
B.A. No.3510/10 3
from the civil court against defacto complainant and others. It is
also seen that petitioners and family members were
apprehending danger to the lives and property and they had even
applied for protection as per annexure-III. Even thereafter, the
posters appeared which would indicate threat again from workers
of CPI(M). The parties are residing adjacent compounds, but as
per the statement of autorikshaw driver, petitioners were found
escaping in a car. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that
if anticipatory bail is not granted to petitioners, it will result in
injustice. Hence the following order is passed:
1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating
officer within seven days from today and co-operate
with the investigation.
2) In the event of their arrest, petitioners shall be
produced before the Magistrate court concerned, in
accordance with law, and they shall be released on
bail on their executing bond for Rs.50,000/- each
with two solvent securities for the like amount to
the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the
following conditions:
i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating
officer as and when directed and co-operate
with investigation.
B.A. No.3510/10 4
ii) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any
witnesses or tamper with evidence.
iii) Petitioners shall not enter the limits of the
police station within which crime is registered
for a period of two months from today.This petition is allowed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Sou.