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
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.