IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1805 of 2010 CRIME NO.19 OF 2010 OF KUTTAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2: ------------------------------------------------ 1. MARTIN ALIAS ANIL, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KURIAN, MEKKAMALIL HOUSE, VATTATTUPARA, KUTTAMPUZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. SANU, S/O.KURIAN, AGED 22 YEARS, MEKKAMALIL HOUSE, VATTATTUPARA, KUTTAMPUZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VARGHESE SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1805 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 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.19 of 2010 of Kuttampuzha Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 452, 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 26.2.2010, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant with choppers. The de facto complainant sustained serious injury. It is seen that the serious injury sustained by the de facto complainant is alleged to have been caused by the overt act done by the first accused. No serious injury is seen caused to the de facto complainant on account of any overt act made by the second accused. B.A. NO. 1805 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injury sustained, I do not think that anticipatory bail can be granted to the first petitioner (first accused). However, the case of the second petitioner (second accused) stands on a different footing. As stated earlier, the overt acts alleged against the second accused are not attributable to the serious injury caused to the de facto complainant. In these circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner (second accused). 5. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the second petitioner (second accused), the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The second petitioner (second accused) shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The second petitioner (second accused) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B.A. NO. 1805 OF 2010 :: 3 :: c) The second petitioner (second accused) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The second petitioner (second accused) 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 dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner (first accused) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to the second petitioner (second accused). (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/