IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5581 of 2009()
1. SAJAN KUNNATHU, S/O.MATHEW,
... Petitioner
2. K.N.SALI, S/O.NANDAN,
3. V.S.NEELAKANDA PILLAI,
4. C.S.ANIL KUMAR @ BABU,
5. C.N.SAJI, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI,
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.SUNIL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :06/10/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 5581 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009
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
to 5 in Crime No.315 of 2008 of Kanjirapally Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 143, 145, 147 and 353 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. B.A.No.5273 of 2009 was filed by the sixth accused in the
case. That Bail Application was disposed of by the order dated
17.9.2009. For the sake of convenience, paragraphs 3 to 5 of the
order dated 17.9.2009 are extracted below:
“3. The prosecution case is that the accused
persons caused obstruction to the official duties of the
survey officials as well as the police, in the matter of
survey sought to be made for the purpose of
construction of waste management disposal plant near
B.A. NO. 5581 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
Vizhikkathodu junction at Kanjirappally. The petitioner
is an advocate by profession. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that an action council was
formed against the construction of the waste
management processing plant at the place in question.
The petitioner claims that he is the Chief Patron of the
action council. It is also submitted that W.P.(C)
No.6663 of 2008 was filed by the office bearers of the
action council before the High Court challenging the
decision to set up the solid waste disposal plant at the
place in question.
4. I have perused the judges papers in W.P.(C)
No.6663 of 2008. It is seen that the Writ Petition was
filed much earlier to the date of incident in the present
case. A Commissioner was appointed in the
proceedings. An interim order dated 10.4.2008 was
passed to the effect that if the Panchayath wants to
proceed with the construction of the plant, the
Panchayath shall obtain prior permission of the court
for starting the construction.
5. Taking into account the facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence
and other circumstances, I am of the view that
anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.”
B.A. NO. 5581 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
4. The position of the petitioners is not different. To my mind,
they are also entitled to get an order for anticipatory bail. There will
be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the
officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on
their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties
for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned,
subject to the following conditions:
a) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;
d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge
in any prejudicial activity while on bail.The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/