IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5197 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.867 OF 2011 OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 1 & 2 ------------------------------- 1. V.A.SHAMSUDEEN, S/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, AGED 55 YEARS, VALIYAVEETIL HOUSE, ERIYAD P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. 2. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PARAPPETTI HOUSE, COMPANYPADY, KANNARA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 867/2011 OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.5197 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 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.867 of 2011 of Thrissur Town East Police Station, Thrissur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It is alleged that a child, aged 16 years, was employed by the petitioners in a hotel owned by the first accused and run by the second accused, for undertaking hazardous job. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 5th July, 2011, the following order was passed: “3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is nothing to indicate that the boy was engaged in doing any hazardous job. It is submitted that the boy did BA No.5197/2011 2 not state so before the police. The counsel submits that there is no material at all to attract the offence. 4. 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 application for anticipatory bail finally, it is necessary to direct the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on 13th July, 2011. Post on 18th July, 2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested for a period of two weeks in connection with the crime.” 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 5.7.2011 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 BA No.5197/2011 3 that the direction in the order dated 5.7.2011 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 appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required . B) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence . C) The petitioners 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 csl BA No.5197/2011 4 K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.5197 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 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.867 of 2011 of Thrissur Town East Police BA No.5197/2011 5 Station, Thrissur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It is alleged that a child, aged 16 years, was employed by the petitioners in a hotel owned by the first accused and run by the second accused, for undertaking hazardous job. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is nothing to indicate that the boy was engaged in doing any hazardous job. It is submitted that the boy did not state so before the police. The counsel submits that there is no material at all to attract the offence. 4. 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 application for anticipatory bail finally, it is necessary to direct the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on 13th July, 2011. Post on 18th July, 2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested for a BA No.5197/2011 6 period of two weeks in connection with the crime. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl