IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5707 of 2011() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.164 OF 2011 OF PERUNADU POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 9 --------------------------------------------- 1. SHAJI,AGED 39 YEARS,S/O.SUKUMARAN, NALLOOR HOUSE,KANNANNOORMON,PERUNADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SURESHAN,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN,OLICKAL HOUSE,PERUNADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. SANDEEP,AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.SURESHAN, OLICKAL HOUSE, PERUNADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. SJUITH,AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SURESHAN,OLICKAL HOUSE, PERUNADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. SURESH,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.YESODHARAN,NELLOOR VEEDU, PERUNADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6. LAL,AGED 36 YEARS,S/O.SUKUMARAN, NELLOOR VEEDU,PERUNADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 7. RAJEEV,AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN,NELLOOR VEEDU,PERUNADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 8. JEGADEESAN,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.YESODHARAN,NELLOOR VEEDU,PERUNADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 9. SHIJU,AGED 29 YEARS,S/O.SOMAN, ARACKANALIL HOUSE,KANNANOORMON, PERUNAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.R.RANJITH -2- Bail Appl..No. 5707 of 2011() RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI31 BY P.P.SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ B.A.No.5707 of 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 9 in Crime No.164 of 2011 of Perunadu Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 27th July, 2011, the following order was passed: “3. The incident took place on 6.6.2011. The allegation is that as a result of the attack made by the first accused with an iron bangle, fracture of the nasal bone of the de facto complainant occurred. It is alleged that accused No.2 used iron rod and the other accused used sticks for committing the crime. 4. Learned counsel for the B.A.No.5707 of 2011 2 petitioners submitted that in respect of an incident which occurred on 6.6.2011, Crime No.156 of 2011 of Perunadu Police Station, was registered in which the second accused in the present case is the de facto complainant. The offences alleged in that case are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that while the injured in Crime No.156 of 2011 were undergoing treatment in the hospital, they were again attacked by the de facto complainant in the present case and his friends. In respect of that case, Crime No.427 of 2011 of Pathanamthitta Police Station was registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The allegations made against the petitioners would reveal that the fracture is attributable to the assault made by accused No.1. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the prayer made by the first accused for anticipatory bail. 6. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, accused Nos.2 to 9 should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to accused Nos.2 to 9 to appear before the investigating officer on 1st and 2nd August, 2011. Post on 5th August, 2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused Nos.2 to 9 will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.164 of 2011 of Perunadu Police Station, till 8.8.2011. They shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.” B.A.No.5707 of 2011 3 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 27th July, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners. 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 27th July, 2011 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 `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) 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 every Monday, 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; B.A.No.5707 of 2011 4 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. cms