IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7782 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRMP.3866/2007 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO.473/07 OF THE PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------ 1. ARSHAD, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. LATE MEERA SAHIB, NEHA VILLA, NEITHELLY NAGAR, NEAR E.M.S.LIBRARY, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. ANIL, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PUTHEN KALIYIKKAL, ARUKALIKKAL, NEDUMON P.O., EZHAMKULAM, PATHANAPURAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 7782 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.452 of the IPC. The 1st petitioner is the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant and the 2nd petitioner is the friend of the 1st petitioner. They had allegedly trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and had indulged in acts of violence. The alleged incident took place on 6/11/07. 2. According to the petitioners, there was strain in the relationship between the de facto complainant and his wife and the petitioners had gone with bona fide intentions to negotiate and arrive at an amicable settlement. Disagreement prevailed and there was an altercation. Fanciful allegations are now B.A. No. 7782 OF 2007 -: 2 :- being raised. No serious injury whatsoever has been suffered by the de facto complainant. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners subject, of course, to appropriate conditions which shall ensure the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation. 4. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 7/1/08. They shall be released on regular bail on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 8/1/08 and 9/1/08 and thereafter on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of one month. Subsequently, they shall so make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when B.A. No. 7782 OF 2007 -: 3 :- directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all; (iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 7/1/08 as directed in clause (i) above, they shall be released on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 7/1/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge