Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1395 (KER)

Harshal v. State of Kerala

2017-11-10

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.512 of 2017 of Kalpetta Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 283 and 353 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 16.10.2017 at 10.30 a.m., the petitioner along with others, in pursuance to a call for 'Hartal' by a certain political party, wrongfully restrained vehicles and blocked the traffic. When the police officers on law and duty intervened, they are alleged to have used criminal force to deter the police officers from discharging their duty as public servants. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that none of the allegations leveled against the petitioner would attract the offence under section 353 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the Vice President of the Youth Congress, Kalpetta Union and a false case has been booked against him. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary as well. 6. Admittedly, the crime was registered on a 'Hartal' day. It is not disputed that the hartal was called by a Political party to which the petitioner owe allegiance The petitioner and his party men by their act of calling and holding 'hartal' have trampled upon the rights of the citizens of the country which are protected by the Constitution. The Apex Court as well as this Court have consistently declared that the said act of calling of a 'bandh' or 'hartal' as the case may be, and the holding of it, is unconstitutional. Without doubt, such acts are highly deplorable and are not in the best interests of the Nation or the citizen of the country. Courts have time and again exhorted the State and the Law and order machinery to deal with the same with all the resources at their command to ensure that the freedom of movement of a citizen or his right to carry on trade, occupation or business is not disrupted by a group of persons, whatever may be their political ideology and whatever may be the reason for the 'hartal'. 7. It is apparent that the petitioner's objective, as the local leader of a political party, was to ensure that the 'hartal' was successful, unmindful of its consequences. 7. It is apparent that the petitioner's objective, as the local leader of a political party, was to ensure that the 'hartal' was successful, unmindful of its consequences. The police officials were engaged in maintaining law and order and prima facie it appears that the petitioner and his men have taken law into their own hands and by using criminal force deterred the officers from discharging their duties. Persons such as the petitioner who put their own political interests over the rights of the common man and impedes their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot come before this Court and seek for exercise of discretionary rights in their favor under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I find no reason to grant him pre arrest bail. 8. At this juncture, the learned counsel prays that he be permitted to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. If the petitioner is so advised, he may surrender before the Investigating Officer, within ten days from today. If he so surrenders, he shall be interrogated and shall be produced before the learned Magistrate on the same day itself. If an application for bail is preferred, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously and on its merits. This application is dismissed.