IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7386 of 2009()
1. RAJENDRAN,AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. RAJESH,AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.RAGHAVAN,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,SASTHAMCOTTA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BIMAL K.NATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :13/01/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 7386 of 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused
Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.547/2009 of Sasthamcotta Police
Station, Kollam.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 379 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 12,
20 and 21 of the Kerala River Bank Protection (Regulation of
Removal of Sand Mining) Act, 2001.
3. The prosecution case is that on 22/8/2009, the S.I. of
Police and party found that the accused were indulged in illegal
sand mining. The accused were filling the sand in two country
boats. On seeing the police party, they escaped by swimming
away. The police party some how managed to bring the two
country boats to the shore. The boats were entrusted to the
custody of police constables. On getting information that another
offence of sand mining was being committed in a nearby place,
the S.I. of Police and party went to that place. The allegation is
that before the S.I. of Police could come back to the place, the
accused persons forcibly took away the two country boats and
B.A. No. 7386 / 2009
2
drowned the same in the river.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised a
contention that Rule 27 of the Sand Rules was not followed and
therefore, the seizure of the country boats was illegal. When the
counsel realised about the prejudice that might be caused to the
petitioners if that point were to be decided against them, the
counsel sought to reserve the same to be agitated at the
appropriate stage.
5. 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 this is a fit
case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the
case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think
that the petitioners are entitled to get the discretionary relief
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely
affect the proper investigation of the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm