Ajitha vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

Apprehending arrest in Crime No.170 of 2023 of Athirappally Police Station, Thrissur District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 294(b), 341, 342, 332, 353 and 506 r/w Section 149 of the IPC, A2, A4, A5 and A6 in BA No.7134/2023, A3 and A8 in BA No.7092/2023, A7 in BA No.7142/2023, A9 and A10 in BA No.6964/2023, A11 and A12 in BA No.6935/2023, A13 and A14 in BA No.7088/2023 have filed this petition seeking pre-arrest bail.

The prosecution allegation is that on 07/08/2023 at about 8.00 p.m., the police officers on intimation that the first accused was selling foreign-made liquor near the Kannankuzhi waiting shed arrived there for inspection and they were detained and was obstructed in the discharge of their duties by the first accused and other 25 identifiable persons.

3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the police initially had come in civil dress in a vehicle with a Maharashtra registration to apparently apprehend a person who was allegedly and unauthorisedly selling IMFL at Athirappally. He mistakenly thought it was A1 and tried to arrest him by dragging him. He shouted and accordingly, the other people of the locality objected to him being taken without knowing that the person in civil dress was a police officer. It is also pointed out that A9 and A10 are the son and son-in-law of A1, while A13 and A14 are the wife and daughter of A1. A8 is a forest guard also hailing from the same area and others are the locals, who came to the scene of the occurrence. They submitted that there was no force used against the police for inviting section 353 IPC and thus prayed for granting them anticipatory bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application submits that initially, the police officer had to come in civil dress as otherwise, it was difficult to apprehend the person about whom information was received of selling IMFL unauthorizedly. After the commotion started in trying to arrest A1, the police party came and even after knowing that they were police, they were obstructed in the discharge of their duty and thus the offence was committed.

Having considered the rival submissions few facts deserve to be noted. On facts, it is clear that A1 was mistakenly taken into custody as no recovery was made from him and it was only on seeing the said person being taken that the locals intervened. The fact that they could not identify the police as he was wearing a civil dress and that too in a private vehicle with Maharashtra registration.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in B.A.6935/23 submits that the same officer had earlier arrested the second accused alleging commission of an offence under S.307 I.P.C case and was detained for several days before releasing him after realising that the initial arrest was on a mistaken identity. Annexures 3 and 4 would prove the above contentions. Under such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner was that it was natural for the locals to fear that the same police officer was repeating his earlier act of arresting an innocent person, they tried to obstruct. They only tried to prevent the police jeep from taking A1 from whom no recovery was made.

Both sides had produced the photographs and the perusal of the same would show that the locals questioned the police under the circumstances narrated above. True, as the Prosecutor says the petitioners could not have tried to prevent the police party when they came in the police jeep and discharging their duty, but on an overall consideration of the facts would reveal that the objection was on account of the previous bad experience as revealed from Annexures 3 and 4 produced in BA No.6935/2023 and their response cannot said to be completely misplaced. In all these cases, there was an order staying the arrest pending consideration of the bail applications. For these reasons, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

i. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within a week from today, and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioner. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating officer shall produce the petitioners before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself.

ii. On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioners on bail, on executing a separate bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) each by the petitioners and by two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(iii) The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation and investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs them to do so.

(iv) The petitioners shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the Investigation in any manner.

v. The petitioners shall not be involved in any offence while on bail.

vi. If any of the above conditions are violated, the court concerned will be empowered to take steps for cancellation of bail as per law.

The bail applications are allowed as above.