Saji Paulose and others v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.6898 OF 2020 CRIME NO.818/2020 OF Kaliyar Police Station , Idukki** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**SAJI PAULOSE**| |---|---| ||**AGED 48 YEARS**| ||**NOONOOTTIL HOUSE**| ||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| ||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA**| ||**IDUKKI DISTRICT,**| ||**685607**| |**2**|**ELDHOSE K.P**| ||**AGED 44 YEARS**| ||**KILLIYAMKUNNATHU HOUSE**| ||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| ||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA**| ||**IDUKKI DISTRICT**| ||**685607**| |**3**|**K.V SAJU**| ||**AGED 59 YEARS**| ||**KAKKATHOTTATHIL HOUSE**| ||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| ||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA**| ||**IDUKKI DISTRICT**| ||**685607**| |**4**|**GEORGE VARGHESE**| ||**AGED 65 YEARS**| ||**NARUKKIYIL HOUSE**| ||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| ||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA**| ||**IDUKKI DISTRICT**| ||**685607**| |**5**|**MATHEWS SCARIA**| ||**AGED 55 YEARS**| ||**KUNAMMANAYIL HOUSE**| ||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| ||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA**| ||**IDUKKI DISTRICT**| ||**685607**| |**Bail Appl..No.6898 OF 2020 2**|**Bail Appl..No.6898 OF 2020 2**| |---|---| |**6**|**V.V SAJU**| ||**AGED 48 YEARS**| ||**VETTICKAL HOUSE, MULLARINGADU KARA**| ||**VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK**| ||**685607**| |**7**|**MANOJ T.K**| ||**AGED 48 YEARS**| ||**THOTTIYIL HOUSE**| ||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| ||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA**| ||**IDUKKI DISTRICT**| ||**685607**| |**8**|**ELDHOSE T.A**| ||**AGED 24 YEARS**| ||**THOTTIYIL HOUSE**| ||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| ||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA**| ||**IDUKKI DISTRICT**| ||**685607**| |**9**|**ELDHOSE A.V**| ||**AGED 54 YEARS**| ||**ANICKAPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE**| ||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| ||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA**| ||**IDUKKI DISTRICT**| ||**685607**| |**10**|**ELDHOSE M.V**| ||**AGED 51 YEARS**| ||**MANGATTU HOUSE**| ||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| ||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA**| ||**IDUKKI DISTRICT**| ||**685607**| |**11**|**JIJO JOSEPH**| ||**AGED 43 YEARS**| ||**KOCHUKKUNNEL HOUSE**| ||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| ||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA**| ||**IDUKKI DISTRICT**| ||**685607**| |**Bail Appl..No.6898 OF 2020 3**|**Bail Appl..No.6898 OF 2020 3**| |---|---| |**12**|**C.I BABY**| ||**AGED 55 YEARS**| ||**CHIRAKKUNNATHU HOUSE**| ||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| ||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA**| ||**IDUKKI DISTRICT**| ||**685607**| |**13**|**K.M PAILY**| ||**AGED 75 YEARS**| ||**KILLIYAMKUNNATHU HOUSE**| ||**CHULLIKANDOM KARA**| ||**NERYAMANGALAM**| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT**| ||**686693**| |**14**|**ELDHOSE JOSEPH**| ||**AGED 48 YEARS**| ||**KILLIYAMKUNNATHU HOUSE**| ||**CHULLIKANDOM KARA**| ||**NERYAMANGALAM**| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT**| ||**686693**| |**15**|**GINO P VARGHESE**| ||**AGED 42 YEARS**| ||**PARAYIL HOUSE**| ||**CHULLIKANDOM KARA**| ||**NERYAMANGALAM**| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT**| ||**686693**| |**16**|**MONSON GEORGE**| ||**AGED 44 YEARS**| ||**CHITTETHU HOUSE**| ||**PAINGOTTOOR KARA**| ||**KADAVOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM**| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT**| ||**686671**| |**17**|**SABU GEORGE**| ||**AGED 40 YEARS**| ||**CHEMBAKASSERIYIL HOUSE**| ||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| ||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPZHA**| ||**IDUKKI DISTRICT -685607**| **Bail Appl..No.6898 OF 2020 4** |**18**||**ELDHOSE VARGHESE**| |---|---|---| |||**AGED 21 YEARS**| |||**NOONOOTTIL HOUSE**| |||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| |||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPZHA**| |||**IDUKKI DISTRICT**| |||**685607**| |**19**||**LEELA GEORGE**| |||**AGED 60 YEARS**| |||**NARUKKIYIL HOUSE**| |||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| |||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPZHA**| |||**IDUKKI DISTRICT**| |||**685607**| |**20**||**EDHOSE K.S**| |||**AGED 22 YEARS**| |||**KAKKATHOTTATHIL HOUSE**| |||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| |||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPZHA**| |||**IDUKKI DISTRICT,**| |||**685607**| |**21**||**ROBIN PAUL**| |||**AGED 23 YEARS**| |||**NJALIYATH HOUSE**| |||**MULLARINGADU KARA**| |||**VANNAPPURAM, THODUPZHA**| |||**IDUKKI DISTRICT**| |||**685607**| |||**BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR**| |**RESPONDENT/S**<br>**:**||| |**1**||**STATE OF KERALA**| |||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF**| |||**KERALA**| |||**682031**| |**2**||**ADDL R2. FR.JITHIN GEORGE**| |||**AGED 33 YEARS**| |||**S/O GEORGE,**| |||**PARNNAYIL HOUSE,**| **Bail Appl..No.6898 OF 2020 5** **VALAYANCHIRANGARA.P.O, VICAR, ST.MARY'S SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, MULLARINGAD, MULLARINGAD.P.O, VANNAPURAM VILLAGE, PIN-685607. IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2020 IN CRL.M.A .NO.1/2020.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH R2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.GITHESH R2 BY ADV. SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S. R2 BY ADV. SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE R2 BY ADV. SRI.MANJUNATH MENON R2 BY ADV. SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT R2 BY ADV. SMT.HANI P.NAIR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.AJITH MURALI -PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Bail Appl..No.6898 OF 2020 6** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 23rd day of November 2020** Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Applicants are accused in Crime No.818/2020 of Kaliyar Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 294(b), 324, 188 r/w Section 149 of IPC and under Sections 5 and 6 of the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Compensation Act, 2019 (hereinafter called as 'DPPC Act') 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused persons and some others totalling 25 in number formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, they committed riot armed with deadly weapon like sticks and stones, trespassed into St.Marys Church at about noon on 02.09.2020, pelted stones and sticks on the vicar of the church, caused damaged to a lorry which was parked there and a water tap, the barbed wire fence which was installed there was removed by them and thus caused damage ## **Bail Appl..No.6898 OF 2020 7** to private property runs to a loss of Rs.2,52,000/- and thus the applicants allegedly committed the offence. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants points out that all the offences except offences under the DPPC Act are bailable. Non bailable offences have been included solely for the purpose of denying bail to the applicant. The applicants pray that they may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. The de facto complainant got himself impleaded as additional respondent in this bail application and has very vehemently opposed the application for bail pointing out that the applicants are bent upon disobeying the decisions of various courts including the Honourable Apex Court and do not abide by the rule of law and constantly taking law into their hands and preventing the lawful authority of the de facto complainant in conducting the religious ceremonies in the disputed church. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant. Records and documents perused. ## **Bail Appl..No.6898 OF 2020 8** 6. The disputes between the applicants and de facto complainant were settled for good by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decisions **K.S.Varghese vs. St.Peter's & Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church [2017 (15) SCC 333]** and **Mathews Mar Koorilos (Dead) and another v. M.Pappy (Dead) and another [2018 (9) SCC 672]** . The contentions raised by the orthodox faction was upheld right upto the Apex Court. They claim possession over the disputed church, which has been constantly opposed by the Jacobite faction, of which the applicants were all members. The applicants were bent upon not obeying the decision of the Apex Court of this country. Number of cases have been registered against the applicants. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant points that the 1[st] accused is an accused in as much as seven criminal cases. All other applicants except accused Nos.16 and 21 are accused in more than one case. All these crimes are pertaining to offences of similar nature, where they have questioned the authority of law. In case the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they are sure to get ## **Bail Appl..No.6898 OF 2020 9** involved in offences of similar nature. Hence the learned counsel appearing of the de facto complainant as also the learned public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 8. After having heard the submissions on both sides and perused the documents produced, I find that the applicants have difficulty in accepting the decisions against them and are therefore questioning it by means of creating a ruckus in all the churches which are to be taken possession by the factions led by the de facto complainant. The law enforcement authority is therefore finding it difficulty to maintain law and order and are forced to proceed against the offenders since they are constantly creating breach of peace and tranquility. As pointed out by the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor there are number of crimes of similar nature registered against most of the applicants. In case the applicants are granted bail, there is possibility of they getting involved in offences of similar nature in future also. The law comes to assistance of only those who abide by the law and the applicants have proved more than once that they do not intend to abide by the law established in this **Bail Appl..No.6898 OF 2020 10** country and have scant respect for court orders. Under the circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to exercise the extraordinary discretionary remedy of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicants. The application is therefore only to be dismissed with a direction to the applicants to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of they being arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where they are at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day by the jurisdictional court. **SD/-** ## **ASHOK MENON** **JUDGE** **rmm**