IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 571 of 2010() -------------------------------- CRIME NO. 7/2010 0F PEERMADE POLICE STATION ..................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- ROBIN, S/O.THANKAROSE, PUTHUVAYALIL VALIYAVILAKAM HOUSE, KOZHIKANAM KARA, ELAPPARA, VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERMADE POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 571 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 08.03.2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.7/2010 of Peermade Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 452, 354, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 2/1/2010, the petitioner caught hold of the de facto complainant, his sister-in- law, who was pregnant and had beaten her. On seeing this, her husband (brother of the petitioner) came to the scene. The allegation is that the petitioner stabbed him and he sustained incised wounds. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Crime No.5/2010 was registered against the husband of the B.A. No. 571 of 2010 2 de facto complainant in the present case for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the allegation is that the petitioner herein was attacked by a chopper. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are civil disputes between the parties in respect of immovable properties. O.S No. 131/2008 of Sub Court, Kattappana and O.S. No.102/2009 of Munsiff's Court , Peermade, are the suits pending, in which the petitioner, the de facto complainant and her husband are parties. 5. 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 petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 15th and 16th March, 2010. 6. Post on 22/03/2010. 7. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in B.A. No. 571 of 2010 3 connection with Crime No. 7 of 2010 of Peermade Police Station. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. Hand over copy to both sides.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order dated 08.03.2010. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, 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. 10,000/- 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. B.A. No. 571 of 2010 4 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 ln