IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1222 of 2010 CRIME NO.85 OF 2010 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR. PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. SAJU, AGED 28 YEARS,S/O.NARAYANAN, PADINHAREPURAYIL, CHUZHALI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. RANJITH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.K.RAGHAVAN, MARIYANTHARAMMAL, CHUZHALI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. RAJESH,AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.M.K.NARAYANAN NAMBIYAR, MAMBERIKUR KUNNUMMAL, CHUZHALI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. BABU,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.KELU, PUTHIYAVEETTIL, CHUZHALI AMSOM,DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING ASI (G), SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1222 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 19.3.2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.85 of 2010 of Sreekandapuram Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 323, 326 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The statement made by the de facto complainant in the First Information Statement is the following: On 9.2.2010 at about 8.30 PM, the de facto complainant closed his shop and went home. After he reached his house, at about 9.45 PM, Saju (accused No.1) called him over phone and stated that there was some problem near the shop of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant was requested to reach the place immediately. Believing the words of the first accused, the de facto complainant rushed to the place in his Mahindra Pick up autorickshaw. When the B.A. NO. 1222 OF 2010 :: 2 :: de facto complainant reached near his shop, at 9.55 PM, the accused persons intercepted the vehicle. Accused No.2, Renjit, removed the key of the autorickshaw. Later, the accused persons pulled the de facto complainant out of the vehicle and he was manhandled. He was beaten with an iron rod and also with hands. It is also alleged that the accused persons destroyed the windshield glass of the autorickshaw. The de facto complainant was admitted in the hospital. The wound certificate shows that the de facto complainant had sustained dislocation of his right shoulder and fracture of neck of IV metacarpal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no motive is alleged for the offence. It is submitted that even though motive is not necessary for the proof of offence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, one would expect as to why the de facto complainant was called by the accused to go over to the place of occurrence. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an altercation took place at the place of occurrence when the de facto complainant, in a drunken stage, abused the accused persons. But there was no attack or manhandling as alleged by the accused and he had sustained injuries not due to any overt acts committed by the accused. B.A. NO. 1222 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 24th and 25th March, 2010. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. 7. Post on 31st March, 2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.85 of 2010 of Sreekandapuram Police Station, Kannur District.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 19.3.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that B.A. NO. 1222 OF 2010 :: 4 :: the direction in the order dated 19.3.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/