IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH MAY 2009 / 18TH VAISAKHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2284 of 2009 ----------------------------- CRIME NO.78/09 OF MEPPAYUR POLICE STATION ................ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KELAPPAN, AGED 57 YEARS, KALLULLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MEPPAYUR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 2. BABU, S/O.KELAPPAN, AGED 43 YEARS, THANIYULLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VILAYATTOOR AMSOM ELAMBILAD DESOM, ELAMBILAD DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SI OF POLICE, MEPPAYUR POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.M. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.2284 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 8th day of May, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by two brothers of the de facto complainant. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.78 of 2009 of Meppayur Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.4.2009 the petitioners who were antagonized by the visit of the de facto complainant to their ancestral home, attacked her and caused the alleged injuries on her. The petitioners totally denied the allegations and according to them, of course, with pain they said that the de facto complainant who is a spinster is a woman of easy virtue. According to them, since they belong to a reputed family they questioned the life style of the de facto complainant and on that score when she was questioned, she ran off and during the course of which she fell down and sustained the injuries and nothing untoward has happened as alleged. B.A.No.2284 of 2009 2 3. As stated earlier, the petitioners are none other than the brothers of the de facto complainant. Having regard to the nature of the relationship between the parties and of course the nature of the allegations and injuries, I think the petitioners can be given the relief sought for without causing any prejudice to the prospects of the investigation in the case. 4. Accordingly this application is allowed subject to the following conditions: i) In the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.50000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the officer conducting the arrest. ii) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer twice in a week, i.e. on all Mondays and Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 12 a.m. till the final report is laid in the case. iii) Petitioners shall not tamper with or attempt to tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence or attempt to intimidate or influence witnesses. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE vns