IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5349 of 2008()
1. MANZOOR, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :01/09/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 5349 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of September,2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail.
2. According to prosecution, accused 1 and 2 were found
dumping animal waste in backwaters on 20-7-2008 at about 8.30
a.m. They were arrested from the spot and during investigation, it
is revealed that vehicle, which was used for carrying the animal
waste, belonged to petitioner and he had entrusted the waste to
the other accused, and hence he was also implicated in the
offence. The alleged offences are under sections 268 and 270
IPC and section 3(2)(a) of The Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner is only the owner of the vehicle in which the article was
carried. But, petitioner has nothing to do with the offence. The
vehicle was hired, and he is not aware of the purpose for which it
was allegedly used, and he has no connection with the crime, it is
submitted. It is also submitted that offence under section 3(2)(a)
of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act will not be
attracted in this case, going by the language of that section. This
BA 5349/08 -2-
is the only non bailable offence alleged in the crime and all other
offences are bailable offences. It is submitted that no recovery is
to be effected and petitioner may not be required for effecting
recovery and hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. This application is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the case diary reveals that petitioner himself
entrusted the animal waste to other accused for dumping into the
back water and, his own vehicle was used for the said purpose. It
is also revealed from the case diary that petitioner is running a
meat shop, and the animal waste is being carried from the shop
to the back water. Referring to section 3(2)(a) of the Act and the
definition of “mischief” under the Act, it is submitted that the
“mischief” has the same meaning as stated in section 425 IPC
and a close reading of section 425 IPC will clearly show that
offence under section 3(2)(c) of the Act will be attracted in an
offence of this nature, it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature
of allegations made against petitioner, it may not be fit to grant
anticipatory bail to petitioner. However, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that a direction may be issued to consider
the bail application on the same day itself. If the petitioner
BA 5349/08 -3-
surrenders and if any bail application is filed, learned Magistrate
will consider the same, as expeditiously as possible, and dispose
of the same in accordance with law.
The application is dismissed.
Hand over the order.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.