IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6916 of 2008()
1. LISSY JOSEPH,ERAYIL HOUSE,PRESIDENT,
... Petitioner
2. MELEKUTT SIMON,MEMBER,
3. SARAMMA, KUZHIVELIL HOUSE,
4. THOMAS ELAPRA, S/O.SCAIRA,
5. S.T.GEORGE, SAURIYAN THOTTIYIL,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :12/01/2009
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
------------------------------
B.A. No.6916 OF 2008
------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 448 and 171-
C of IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act. According to prosecution, Form 6B register and
ballot papers were destroyed by petitioners and others.
Petitioners are accused nos.1 to 5.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the
allegations made against petitioners are absolutely false. A
writ petition was filed by fourth petitioner and another
accused before another bench of this court and as per order
dated 28.10.2008 vide Annexure IV, the disputes between the
parties were looked into and the order will show that there
was no allegation that Form 6B register was destroyed by
petitioners or any other person. Therefore, this is a false case,
which was fabricated after disposal of the writ petition,
alleging that petitioners and others committed the offences on
22.10.2008, prior to the disposal of the writ petition. It is also
B.A.No.6916 of 2008
2
submitted that in the F.I. Statement, names of the petitioners
were not mentioned. But it is only alleged that a “group of
persons” committed the offences.
4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that there is clear evidence to show that
petitioners committed various offences on 22.10.2008. The fact
whether the register was destroyed or not, was not a matter of
consideration in the writ petition. Only because of the omission
in the order in writ petition, as pointed out by learned counsel
for petitioner, it may not be proper to come to a conclusion
that no offence was committed, as alleged by petitioners. It is
submitted that the register was taken into custody by the
police on 22.10.2008 itself, and the mahazar was also prepared
showing that the pages were torn off. Therefore, there is no
substance in the arguments advanced by the defence, it is
submitted.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that during
investigation, it is revealed from statement of various
witnesses that petitioners are the persons involved in the
offence along with others. It is also pointed out that statement
B.A.No.6916 of 2008
3
of witnesses are available in the case diary to clearly implicate
petitioners in the offence.
On hearing both sides and on considering the nature of
the allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to
grant anticipatory bail. I am not inclined to invoke provisions
under section 438 Cr.P.C.
The incident occurred as early as on 22.10.2008 and
petitioners have not surrendered so far either before the
Magistrate court or before the police.
Petitioners are directed to surrender before the
Magistrate court concerned or the Investigating
Officer and co-operate with the investigation.
Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty
to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law.
With this direction, the petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
pac