Manoj, Kurian, Biju and Sijo vs State of Kerala and The Station House Officer

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.—Petitioners are accused in Crime No. 756 of 2013 of Munnar Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 332, 506(ii) and 427 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. They have filed the above application seeking pre-arrest bail u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''the Code''). Allegation is that petitioners abused and assaulted the de facto complainant, a forest officer, and prevented him from arresting the second petitioner, who is an accused in a forest case. The above crime was registered recording the statement of de facto complainant, while he was undergoing treatment in a hospital, allegedly, sustaining injuries in the occurrence involved. At about 7.30 a.m. on 30.5.2013, the de facto complainant with some forest officers went over to arrest second petitioner, who is involved in a forest case. When they reached beside the house of second petitioner and attempted to arrest him, all the petitioners abused and assaulted the de facto complainant, and also criminally intimidated and threatened him and other forest officials, is the accusation. Crime registered thereof is now under investigation.

Learned counsel for petitioners submitting that the crime has been registered on false allegations and petitioners are innocent urged for granting them the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. There was only an altercation and that too on a request made by the son of second petitioner not to arrest his father, is the submission of counsel. Registering a forest case on false allegations in respect of a land over which proceedings are pending before this Court, the above crime also has been foisted against petitioners on baseless allegations on account of the spite of forest officials towards them, is the further submission of counsel. Opposing the application learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the materials gathered by investigating agency disclose complicity of petitioners in the offences imputed and this is not a fit case where petitioners can be extended discretionary relief applied for. Case Diary has been produced for my perusal. After looking into the Case Diary with reference to the submissions made by counsel on both sides, I find enough room to suspect complicity of petitioner in the grave offences imputed against them. Where the circumstances presented in the case disclose that forest officials were criminally intimidated and one of them was assaulted and they were prevented from discharging their duties as public servants by the accused persons the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail cannot be extended to them. I hold that petitioners are not entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail. Petitioners have to surrender and co-operate with the investigation of the crime.

Petition is dismissed.