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. 5725 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.406/2011 OF AROOR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------ 1. RARI MOL, D/O.K.P.RAJAPPAN, AGED 23 YEARS, CHAPPAYIPARAMBIL HOUSE, HAPPY VILLA, NANDHIYATTUKUNNAM, KALIKULANGARA, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.P.RAJAPPAN, CHAPPAYIPARAMBIL HOUSE, HAPPY VILLA, NANDHIYATTUKUNNAM, KALIKULANGARA, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.A.C.THOMAS (PONKUNNAM) RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.406/2011 OF ARROR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.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.5725 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 and 2 in Crime No.406 of 2011 of Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 27.7.2011, the following order was passed : “3. The first accused is the daughter of the second accused. The de facto complainant is the mother-in-law of the first accused. There are matrimonial disputes between the first accused and her husband. The child born in the wedlock is with the father of the child. They are residing in Aroor. The first petitioner filed W.P.(Crl) No.236 of 2011 BA 5725/2011 2 praying for the issue of a writ of a habeas corpus on the ground that the child was illegally detained by her husband and in-laws. That Writ Petition (Criminal) was disposed of as per the judgment dated 30th June, 2011, holding that the parties have to approach the Family Court for appropriate reliefs. 4. The prosecution case is that on 2.7.2011 at 11.30 A.M., the accused persons along with the mother of the first accused went to the house of the de facto complainant and tried to forcibly take away the child of the first accused. The de facto complainant made a hue and cry and tried to prevent the accused from taking away the child. The de facto complainant was attacked by accused Nos.1 and 2 and she sustained injuries including fracture on her right middle finger. In the First Information Statement, the de facto complainant specifically stated that the mother of the first accused, though she was present at the scene of occurrence, did not do anything against the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant stated that she was pushed and she fell down on the septic tank and sustained injuries. From the First Information Statement and the facts narrated above, it is fairly clear, prima facie, that the fracture is not attributable to an attack with a dangerous weapon coming within the meaning of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even BA 5725/2011 3 assuming that a fracture occurred to the de facto complainant, Section 326 is not attracted. 5. 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, the petitioners should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer on 2nd and 3rd August, 2011. 6. Post on 5th August, 2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.406 of 2011 of Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha district, till 10th August, 2011. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 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 27.7.2011 has been complied with by the petitioners. BA 5725/2011 4 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 27.7.2011 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 arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for ` 10,000/- 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 all 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; BA 5725/2011 5 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 csl