Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.479/2014 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragode District, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 332 & 354 r/w 149 IPC. The brief of the prosecution case is that on 31.8.2014 the petitioners unlawfully assembled in the temple premises of Madhur Sree Siddi Vinayaka Temple and outraged the modesty of the lady defacto complainant, who is said to be a public servant (Executive Officer of the Temple Devaswom), and caused obstruction in discharging her official duty. It is the case of the petitioners that the said allegations have been falsely foisted against them and that the disputes arose as to the hike of prices in seva/offerings in the temple poojas and that Commissioner of Madhur Sree Siddi Vinayaka Devaswom had issued circular in that regard which has led to arbitrary hike of prices of sevas/offerings in the temple poojas. Petitioners are the office bearers of the Madhur Sree Siddi Vinayaka Kshethra Samrakshana Samithy and on the request of the devotees, petitioners along with devotees protested against such hike. The temple authorities also requested the petitioners, being the leaders of the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithy to interfere in the matter and to mediate the issues. The police, press and the devotees were present at the spot at the time of protest and no such incident as alleged was taken place and that there was a mediation with the Devaswom officials and due to the protest from the public, it was decided to keep in abeyance the price hike of the sevas. During mediation, the defacto complainant had created some false documents and after mediation, the petitioners left the place and later it was understood that the defacto complainant has lodged the aforesaid falsely which led to the triggering of the instant crime, it is submitted. It was further urged that the defacto complainant is an influential person and her husband is the leader of the ruling political party and the Counsellor of the Kasaragode Municipality and due to that rivalry and also to escape from the illegal activities committed by the defacto complainant the present crime is registered against the petitioners etc. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that they may be given the relief of pre-arrest bail in this case as there is no case of injury or have used any weapon and there is no recovery from the petitioners and further that the petitioners will fully co-operate with the investigation and subject themselves for due questioning by the investigating officer and that there is no necessity for custodial detention in the facts and circumstance of the case. It is further submitted that all the offences except the Sections 332 & 354 are bailable offences.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the offence involved is one allegedly committed against a public servant in the course of her official duties and that it has to be viewed seriously and that the presence of the petitioners for effective questioning is highly necessary and and that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary and has accordingly opposed this application. Sri.A.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that due to serious allegations raised against the above said lady Executive Officer, she has been transferred from the post of Executive Officer after the alleged incident and the Assistant Commissioner has been given the charge of the Executive Officer of the temple and this is primarily due to the allegations raised against her, it is submitted.
3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Public Prosecutor is right in submitting that the offences involved are not trivial but serious, especially because it is allegedly directed against a public servant, who was stated to be discharging her official duties. But, at the same time, no specific allegations of having caused any injury or having used any weapon has been alleged even by the informant. Petitioners have a specific case that they have raised the above said issue as they were the office bearers of the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithy who were protesting against the alleged arbitrary hike in the sevas/offerings connected to the poojas of the temple. Even from the reading of the First Information triggered by the informant, it can be seen that except making allegations as against about 50 persons who were allegedly present in the scene of occurrence no specific overt act has been attributed to any of the petitioners. Moreover, no injury is also alleged by the informant. At the same time effectuation of proper investigation is highly necessary by subjecting the petitioners for proper questioning by the investigating officer. Taking into consideration the overall aspects of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the directions contained in the order dated 15.7.2014 in B.A.No.5030/2013 could be adopted in this case also in the interest of justice to protect the interests of both sides, instead of straight away allowing the plea of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly it is ordered that;
i) The petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer in Crime No.479/2014 of Vidyanagar Police Station at 10:00 am on 4.11.2014.
ii) In case the interrogation is not completed on that day, it is open to the investigating officer concerned to direct the presence of the petitioners on any other day/days at time as may be specified by him in writing to the petitioners to which the petitioners shall comply.
iii) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation. After conclusion of the entirety of the interrogation process as directed above, in case arrest of the petitioners are recorded, they shall be produced by the investigating officer before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day and the petitioners can then move, appropriate bail applications before the Magistrate who shall then consider the application on the same day and release the petitionerS on bail on their executing separate bonds for ` 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and subject to imposition of any other conditions that are found necessary and just by the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned.
(vi) If after the completion of the investigation process as above said, the investigating officer does not record the arrest of the petitioners, then the petitioners will forthwith, on the same day or on the immediate next day, shall appear and formally surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned and submit bail applications, which the learned Magistrate shall consider on the same day and release the petitioners on bail on their executing separate bonds for ` 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and subject to imposition of any other conditions that are found necessary and just by the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned.
It is made clear that if the petitioners violate any of the conditions that may be imposed by the jurisdictional Magistrate as above stated, the bail granted to them are liable to cancelled.
The bail application stands finally disposed of.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.