IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 204 of 2010 CRIME NO.681 OF 2009 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER : --------------------- JAYARAJAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, "AROMA", KANNANKUZHY, AMARAVILA.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CANTONMENT SUB DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 204 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.681 of 2009 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 22.1.2010, the following order was passed: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the case diary file also. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to appear before the investigating officer and convince the investigating officer of the innocence of the petitioner. 3. Without pronouncing anything on the merits, the offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner B.A. NO. 204 OF 2010 :: 2 :: is accepted and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the investigating officer on 28th and 29th January, 2010. 4. Post on 4th February, 2010. 5. It is made clear that the direction to appear before the investigating officer is on the basis of the offer made by the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer to explain the matters and to convince his innocence. It is also made clear that appearance, if any, made by the petitioner by itself will not be a ground for granting anticipatory bail. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 22.1.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner had co- operated with the investigating officer and had disclosed the relevant details. B.A. NO. 204 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 22.1.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) 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/