Dileep v. The S.I.Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/18TH JYAISHTA, 1937 Bail Appl..No.3065 of 2015 -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.417/2015 OF CHITTAR POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTITTA. ..

PETITIONER'S/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 7:

------------------------------------------------------- 1.

DILEEP,AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.DIVIRAJAN PILLAI, MALIEYAKKAL HOUSE,VAYYATTUPPUZHA, CHITTAR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

2.

LATHEEF,AGED 43 YEARS,S/O.MEERA SAHIB, CHARIVUKALAYIL HOUSE,CHITTAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

3.

JINO,AGED 22 YEARS,S/O.GEORGEKUTTY, MARUTHIMEPPURATHU HOUSE,CHITTAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

4.

LALU,AGED 43 YEARS,S/O.RAGHAVAN, OLICKKAL HOUSE,CHITTAR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5.

KISHORE,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.VINOD, SREELAKSHMI NILAYAM,CHITTAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

6.

P.V.BIJU,AGED 36 YEARS,RAGHAVAN PALANIKKUNNATHIL HOUSE,CHITTAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA) RESPONDENT'S/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

1.

THE S.I.OF POLICE,CHITTAR POLICE STATION,PIN-684 663. 2.

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 031.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REMA.R THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

pk

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No.3065 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of June, 2015

O R D E R

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

Petitioners have allegedly committed the offences under Sections 141, 143, 147, 294(b), 353 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

3.

The prosecution case is that on getting information that gambling was going on at the place of occurrence where a festival was being conducted the Sub Inspector of Police went to the spot and the petitioners along with the first accused obstructed him from taking any action against the persons who were engaged in gambling. One of the accused prevented him from recording the incident on his mobile phone.

4.

Heard.

5.

The allegation is a serious one. The petitioners challenged the authority of the Government by preventing the Sub Inspector from taking action against the persons who were engaged in gambling in connection with a

B.A. No.3065 of 2015 festival. Such persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail In the result, this application is dismissed. sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge