Kerala High Court
Ajayan vs The Station House Officer on 20 September, 2013
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/29TH BHADRA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 6144 of 2013 ()
-----------------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1706/2013 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM
---------------------
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:
---------------------------------------------
1. AJAYAN, S/O CHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS,
ASSISTANT FILED OFFICER
VETERINARY CENTRE, VARINJAM, KOLLAM,
RESIDING AT DEVI KRIPA, PUNTHALATHAZHAM, KOLLAM.
2. VINOD, S/O SASIDHARAN, AGED 37 YEARS,
LIVE STOCK INSPECTOR GRADE-I,
VETERINARY DISPENSARY, ERAVIPURAM KOLLAM, RESIDING
AT ASWATHI BHAVANAM,
THATTAMALA, KOLLAM.
3. C.P.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR @ UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O PRABHAKARAN,
AGED 47 YEARS, LIVE STOCK INSPECTOR GRADE-I,
VETERINARY SUB CENTRE, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM,
RESIDING AT PRANAVAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM, MUKHATHALA,
KOLLAM.
4. SHARAFUDEEN KUTTY S. @ SHARAFUDEEN,
S/O SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 47 YEARS, LIVE STOCK INSPECTOR GRADE-I
VETERINARY SUB CENTRE, MEEYANNOOR, KOLLAM,
RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEVILA THEKKETHIL, PERUMPUZHA P.O.
KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KUNDARA POLICE STTION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------- B. A. No.6144 of 2013
---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2013 Order This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.1706/2013 of Kundara Police Station, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell was that on 18.08.2013 at 11.30 a.m., the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention, attacked the defacto-complainant, who is a senior veterinary surgeon in Kundara Veterinary hospital, and abused him and prevented him from discharging his duty as a public servant and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under Section 332, 294(b) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they are innocent of the same. It is also submitted that they have only conducted Dharna in a peaceful manner B. A. No.6144 of 2013 2 and no incident has happened as alleged. After suspension, they were reinstated by the Government vide Annexure-A2 order. So he prayed for allowing the application.
4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the investigation is not over and granting anticipatory bail may affect the investigation.
5. Heard both sides and perused the case diary files.
6. It is seen from the records that the above case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the defacto-complainant, against the present petitioners alleging offence under Section 332, 294(b), read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. On going through the allegations, I do not find that, it is a fit case for invoking Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Further, the application filed by them was turned down by the Sessions Judge as well, as per the B. A. No.6144 of 2013 3 order in Criminal M.P. No.2540/2013, dated 30.08.2013. They can very well surrender before the concerned Magistrate court and move for regular bail. If the petitioners surrender before the concerned Magistrate court and move for regular bail, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the bail application if any filed on the same day itself, in accordance with law.
With the above observation, the Bail Application is disposed of.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss