Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.391/2014 of the Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 58(4) of the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1967.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 12.11.2014 at 5.p.m., the de-facto complainant saw the petitioner driving lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-10AF/6749, loaded with red soil, in contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1967, and thereby the de-facto complainant, who is the Village Officer, Kuruva, asked the petitioner to stop the lorry. When he stopped the lorry, it is alleged that the de-facto complainant demanded the key of the lorry from the driver. Then, all of a sudden, without obeying the order of the de-facto complainant, the petitioner drove away the lorry, in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger the life of the de-facto complainant, thereby obstructing the discharge of the official duties of the de-facto complainant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Village Officer is not the authority competent to seize the vehicle for the alleged violation of the provision of the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules. In such case, it cannot be said that the direction forwarded by the de-facto complainant for handing over the key of the vehicle was a lawful order, which the de-facto complainant was competent to pass. Matters being so, the violation of such a direction cannot be constituted as an offence within the meaning of Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be probable. No criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the present stage of investigation, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the continued investigation of the case. Considering all the above, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.
5. In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for ₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Fridays and Tuesdays, commencing from 5.12.2014 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.
(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.
It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE dl // TRUE COPY // PA to Judge