The single judge Bench dismissed a bail application seeking anticipatory relief under Section 438 CrPC against allegations of assaulting Sand Squad officials and illegal mining by a private individual.
The Bail Application is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932
Bail Appl..No. 668 of 2010() ---------------------------CRIME NO. 17/2010 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 15:
BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT:
SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
B.A. No.668 of 2010
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010
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 and 15 in Crime No.17/2010 of Vazhakkad Police Station, Malappuram.
B.A. No.668/2010
2
KL 56/3928. The sand was being brought in country boats and it was being loaded in the tipper lorry. The 'Sand Squad' seized the tipper lorry. At that time, the persons who were engaged in the illegal sand mining and loading of the sand in the lorry escaped from the place in a country boat. They informed over mobile phone their friends about the seizure of the lorry. When the 'Sand Squad' was taking the tipper lorry after preparing mahazar, they were intercepted in the property belonging to a private individual, by about fifty people under the leadership of the first accused. The first accused shouted to kill the members of the 'Sand Squad'. The assailants attacked the members of the 'Sand Squad' and they were brutally manhandled. The assailants also took away the lorry, which was seized by the 'Sand Squad'. The jeep, in which the 'Sand Squad' came to the spot, was destroyed by the accused. For attacking members of the 'Sand Squad', the accused persons used dangerous weapons. The members of the Squad sustained injuries and they were admitted in the hospital.
B.A. No.668/2010
3
the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners and others are the members of the 'People squad', who detected grave corruption of the Revenue Officials and Police Officials in the matter of illegal mining of sand. It is alleged that instead of taking action against the culprits, allegations were made against the petitioners and they were falsely implicated in the present case. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioners ever raised any complaint against any such corruption or malpractices. There is no case that the members of the 'Sand Squad' did not sustain injuries in the alleged incident. If that is so, the theory of the petitioner that they were protesting against corruption and that the members of the 'Sand Squad' were not taking proper action cannot be, prima facie, believed. If the members of the 'Sand Squad' were not taking action against the illegal sand miners, one fails to understand as to how the members of the 'Sand Squad' sustained injuries at 9.45 P.M. near an unauthorised Kadavu. While disposing of an application for anticipatory bail, it is not necessary to arrive at any finding regarding the aforesaid contentions put forward by either parties.
B.A. No.668/2010
4
Prima facie, there are materials to connect the petitioners with the offence. The name of the first accused is mentioned in the F.I. Statement itself. The allegations are grave in nature. The offence alleged against the accused is heinous. The members of the 'Sand Squad' were discharging their official duties and they were taking action against the culprits, who were involved in the illegal sand mining and removal of the sand.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail was admissible under Section 438 CrPC given the gravity of the heinous offences alleging assault on officials.
Whether the prima facie materials connecting petitioners to the offence justified denying discretionary bail relief.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SABITH.M.P
SHABEER
STATE OF KERALA
K.T. SANKARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
