IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5414 of 2008()
1. SARAFUDHEEN, S/O. KUNHIMOIDEENKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA/SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :29/08/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No. 5414 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th August, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 353 and 308
read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and 4(1)(a) read with 21(1)
(b) of the Minor Mineral Development Regulation Act.
According to prosecution, petitioner, who is the first accused,
was transporting sand illegally in a vehicle, without licence
and forest officials followed him in a vehicle to detect the
crime. The petitioner applied sudden brake in such a way to
cause an accident and endanger human life. After stopping the
vehicle, the petitioner ran away. But the cleaner, who was
present in the vehicle, was arrested from the spot and he is the
second accused in the case. The incident occurred on 6.8.2008
and the petitioner could not be arrested so far.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. The second
accused alone was arrested from the spot. After his arrest,
police insisted that the vehicle must be produced and one
BA.5414/08 2
Haneefa produced the vehicle before the police and he also
informed the police that the petitioner was driving the vehicle
at the relevant time and that is how the petitioner is made an
accused. He is absolutely innocent of the allegations made.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the petitioner was engaged in illegal sand
mining and the de facto complainant identified the petitioner,
who ran away. His identity is revealed and in a case of this
nature, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail. It cannot be
said that petitioner is implicated only because of the statement
made by the owner of the vehicle.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature
of the allegations made against the petitioner, it is not proper
to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner could not be arrested
so far and he will be required for interrogation.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.