IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6244 of 2008()
1. AHAMMED, AGED 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :29/10/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A.Nos.6244 & 6252 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008
O R D E R
These petitions are for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under Section 395 IPC.
Petitioner in B.A.No.6244/08 is accused no.10 and petitioner in
B.A.No.6252/08 is accused no.4 in the crime. According to
prosecution, an estate having an extent of 246 acres was sold to
defacto complainant by virtue of 9 sale deeds. Thereafter, there
was a dispute with respect to an extent of land worth Rs.60
lakhs, since Forest Officials made a claim over some extent of
property. The defacto complainant insisted that said claim
should be settled within six months, in which event, he was
ready to pay Rs.60 lakhs also. But, this was not done. Instead,
the accused, made the mother of the first accused to stay in the
bungalow in the estate and thereafter, accused 30 in number
trespassed into the property and committed offence under
Section 395 IPC by robbing 35 tons of coffee and 1.5 tons
of pepper kept in the estate godown which is worth about
BA Nos.6244 & 6252/2008 2
Rs.20 lakhs. Vehicle was also used for the commission of the
said offence. On a complaint made by the defacto complainant, a
crime was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
dispute is only of a civil nature. There was a sale agreement and
some breach of conditions. But, a criminal complaint is lodged
against various persons including petitioners. Petitioners are
absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The 4th accused is
only a student who is studying for M.B.A. in Bangalore and he
had come to meet his grand mother in the estate bungalow, on
his way back from Bangalore. He was falsely implicated though
he has nothing to do with the estate or in the sale.
4. It is also submitted that A10 is working as a writer in
Krishnagiri estate, which is situated nearby and he has no role in
the offence. It is also pointed out that no crime was registered
by police originally, on the ground that there was only a civil
dispute. Later, defacto complainant approached this court by
filing a Crl.M.C. and this Court dismissed the petition and
thereafter, learned Magistrate directed the DYSP to conduct an
investigation into this crime. Grandmother of the fourth accused
BA Nos.6244 & 6252/2008 3
expired and he could not even attend the 41st ceremony.
5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public
prosecutor submitted that the presence of A4 and A10 at scene is
clearly revealed from records. The allegation made against A10
is that he aided the accused to remove the stolen articles to
Krishnagiri estate and it was from there that the articles were
later removed. He has specific role in the offence. Against the
4th accused also allegations are made that he was present at the
scene and that he participated in the offence. It is not correct to
say that A4 and A10 has no role at all.
6. Even according to learned counsel for petitioners, A4
has no right over the property and the property did not belong to
him and therefore, he had no justification in going to the scene
of occurrence when there was a serious dispute. It was also
pointed out that after having executed sale deeds and not having
settled the dispute with respect to the property worth Rs.60
lakhs, defacto complainant is entitled to enjoy the property. But,
huge quantity of coffee and pepper were robbed from the
property. It is also submitted that only some of the accused are
arrested and others are yet to be arrested. On the nature of
BA Nos.6244 & 6252/2008 4
allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it
is submitted.
7. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of
allegations made, particularly the materials available in the case
diary and the specific allegations made against both the
petitioners and also considering the nature of investigation
required, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
These petitions are dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl