IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5198 of 2009()
1. VINOD S., AGED 27 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. ABHILASH.S., AGED 25 YEARS,
3. BONOD.T. @ SUMESH, AGED 20 YEARS,
4. RATHEESH.B., AGED 23 YEARS,
5. BABU.R., AGED 57 YEARS,
6. CHANDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
7. LENIN.N.R., AGED 25 YEARS,
8. JOY, AGED 40 YEARS,
9. RAJESH, S/O.RAVINDRAN,
10. RADHEESH, AGED 24 YEARS,
11. RATHESH, AGED 25 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.VARGHESE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :09/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NOS.5198 & 5200 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
These Bail Applications are filed by some of the accused
persons in Crime Nos.256 of 2009 and 257 of 2009 of Aryankodu
Police Station, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. B.A.No.5200 of 2009 relates to Crime No.256 of 2009. The
petitioners therein are accused Nos.4, 7, 5, 6, 14, 8, 19, 13, 10, 11
and 12. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 143, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3
(1) and 5 of the PDPP Act.
3. B.A.No.5198 of 2009 relates to Crime No.257 of 2009. The
petitioners therein are accused Nos.4, 7, 5, 6, 14, 8, 9, 13, 10, 11
and 12. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 332, 308, 294(b), 354 and
427 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) and 5 of the PDPP
Act.
4. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 16.8.2009
B.A. NOS. 5198 & 5200 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
at 9.15 PM, the petitioners and the other accused prevented the
police party from discharging their official duties. It is alleged that
the jeep in which the police party proceeded was intercepted and
damage was caused to the vehicle. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that on 16.8.2009, results of the election of the
co-operative society in the locality were declared and the persons
who are supporters of the political party of which the petitioners are
workers, came out as elected candidates. There was jubilation and
a procession was conducted by the winning party. The petitioners
participated in the procession. It is also submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the case was foisted against the
petitioners.
5. The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
supporters of the winning political party left the place after a
procession was held. Thereafter, the accused persons went near
the house of the defeated candidates and indulged in committing
offences. At that time, when the police party went there, the
accused persons attacked the police party and caused obstruction to
their official duties. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted
that the offence alleged against the accused in Crime No.257 of
B.A. NOS. 5198 & 5200 OF 2010
:: 3 ::
2009 is that they trespassed into the premises of the police station
and attacked the police personnel found in the police station. It is
stated that injuries resulting in fracture of ribs were caused to the
Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. The incident in Crime No.257 of
2009 took place later in point of time. It is alleged that due to the
illegal acts of the accused persons, the Assistant Sub Inspector of
Police had sustained serious injuries and the functioning of the
police in the police station was disrupted.
6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations
levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that these are fit cases
where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. The
petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the petitioners are granted
anticipatory bail, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of
the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/