Loading...

Vipeesh vs State Of Kerala on 27 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
Vipeesh vs State Of Kerala on 27 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3051 of 2010()


1. VIPEESH, S/O.SAMBAN, VIPEESH BHAVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :27/05/2010

 O R D E R
                             K. HEMA, J
                          ----------------------
                      B.A.No.3051 OF 2010
                  -----------------------------------
            Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010

                              O R D E R

This is a petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under sections 353 r/w 34 IPC.

According to prosecution, an accident occurred in front of defacto

complainant’s house involving three vehicles. One of the vehicles

hit compound wall of petitioner’s property and caused damage to

compound wall. This was on 21.3.2010. On the same day at

about 8.30 pm police party, including Sub Inspector and two other

police officials went to the place of occurrence and wanted to

remove the car which was hit against the compound wall of

petitioner’s property. At that time, three persons including

petitioner (A2) came there and stated that they will not allow the

car to be removed until the compound wall is repaired and

thereby they obstructed the public servant from execution of their

official duty.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner

is innocent of the allegations made. Two persons had came to the

B.A. No.3051/10 2

place of occurrence by about 8.30pm and tried to remove the car.

The petitioner told them that petitioner has to be paid the

damages and then only car can be removed. Petitioner was under

the impression that those persons were having interest in the car.

But later police party came there with pick-up van to remove the

car. It was only then petitioner knew that the persons who had

came earlier were also police officials. Petitioner did not do

anything against police officials. Hence anticipatory bail may be

granted, it is submitted.

4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that as per the

allegations made in the first information statement, at the time of

occurrence, Sub Inspector and police constable had gone to the

place of occurrence with a pick-up van and when they were

attempting to remove the same, petitioners and others

obstructed police party and hence crime was registered. It is

also submitted that charge is laid.

5. On hearing both sides and going through first information

statement, it appears that no criminal use was used by any

person to any public servant and assault was also not made. The

accused have only stated that they would not allow the car to be

removed until compound wall is repaired. To attract sec.353 of

B.A. No.3051/10 3

IPC assault or criminal force is required. On hearing both sides, I

am satisfied that Petitioner can be granted bail on condition.

Hence the following order is passed:

Petitioner shall appear before Magistrate court

concerned within seven days from today and he shall

be released on bail on his executing a bond for

Rs.10,000/- with two solvent securities each for the

like amount to the satisfaction of the learned

Magistrate on condition that petitioner shall not

tamper with evidence.

This petition is allowed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

Sou.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information