ORDER : The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 7 in Crime No.17/2019 of Chathannoor Police Station for offences punishable under Ss.143, 147,294(b), 308, 323,324 and 427 read with S.149 I.P.C. 2. On 3.1.2019, one political party declared a hartal in Kerala. The uncle of the de facto complainant, who was conducting a furniture shop on the main road side, opened his shop despite call for hartal. De facto complainant went to the shop in the morning. A group of 15 persons including the petitioners herein came to the shop and questioned the salesman for opening the shop on the hartal day. They abused the salesman and caused damage to the movables in the shop. When the de facto complainant intervened, the first petitioner took a cloth stand and hit on the head of the de facto complainant, which caused injury near the right eye. One among the group took out a stone and smashed the window pane of the shop. Yet another person took out a plastic chair from the shop and smashed the front glass of a car which was parked in front of the shop. Thereafter, they ransacked the shop by throwing out all the movables. When the brother of the de facto complainant intervened, he was also attacked. Damage was quantified at Rs. 1,50,000/-. Crime was registered. Apprehending arrest, petitioners have approached this court seeking pre-arrest bail. 3. Above criminal acts were done under the cover of hartal called by a political party. It seems that members of the criminal group were acting as, if once hartal is called by any party, all the shops shall remained closed and vehicles should stop running. Any person who disobey the call, was liable to be criminally dealt with. It seems that, the above group was proceeding as if they got the licence to do any criminal activity, as evidenced by the above acts. The act of the petitioners herein and their group is nothing but sheer vandalism, under the guise of hartal. Call for hartal by any political party only gives right to the members of that political party to withdraw themselves from their work as protest. They may also persuade their fellow workers to withdraw from their work. The act of the petitioners herein and their group is nothing but sheer vandalism, under the guise of hartal. Call for hartal by any political party only gives right to the members of that political party to withdraw themselves from their work as protest. They may also persuade their fellow workers to withdraw from their work. But that does not empower them to commit criminal acts, much less, any act intended to interfere in the exercise of Fundamental Right of any person to move freely anywhere in India and to carry on his trade or business anywhere in India. It is also pertinent to note that any type of criminal activity causing damage to public or private property, under the guise of any mode of protest is an act seriously affecting the national or state economy also. 4. A Full Bench of this Court in George Kurian v. State of Kerala ( 2004 (2) KLT 758 (F.B.)) has held that nobody could be compelled to participate in hartal and general strike. It was also held that people who are calling for strike or hartal are vicariously liable to pay damages. In Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala ( 1997 (2) KLT 287 (F.B.) a Full Bench of this Court had held that calling of a Bandh and holding of it is unconstitutional. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Communist Party of India v. Bharat Kumar & Ors. AIR 1998 SC 184 ) on the premise that, Fundamental Rights of the people as a whole cannot be subservient to the claim of Fundamental Right of an individual or only a section of the people. In James Martin v. State of Kerala (2004 (1) KLT 513 (SC)), Supreme Court has held that under the guise of Hartal or Bandh, no person has any right to cause inconvenience to any person or to cause, in any manner, a threat or apprehension of risk to life, liberty or property of any citizen or destruction of life and Government or Public property. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kodungallur Film Society & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 713), had held that any mob violence and crime by self appointed keepers of public morality terrorizing common man without legal sanction and causing loss of life and destruction of property should be dealt with seriously. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kodungallur Film Society & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 713), had held that any mob violence and crime by self appointed keepers of public morality terrorizing common man without legal sanction and causing loss of life and destruction of property should be dealt with seriously. The court had issued preventive, remedial and punitive measures to contain such use of threat or actual violence. 6. Any criminal act under the guise of Bandh, hartal or any other mode of protest affecting the right of any citizen to carry on his trade or business, right to move freely anywhere in India and the right to life, is a matter which is liable to be seriously dealt with, not only as a mere criminal act against an individual, but as a serious offence against the society itself. Evidently, courts are bound to deal with such criminal acts done under the guise of hartal, bandh or protest strictly. While dealing with the bail applications filed by persons who are charged with such offence, the courts have to bear in mind the above principles and should be dealt with circumspection. It seems that, learned Sessions Judge has correctly appreciated the facts and rejected the bail. 7. Having considered the above facts, I am inclined to hold that the act disclosed by the records against the petitioners is a matter of serious nature and does not call for granting discretionary relief under S.438 Cr.P.C. Bail application fails and is accordingly dismissed.