IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3567 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO.113/2009 OF MEPPAYUR POLICE STATION., KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ E.K.ANILKUMAR, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, KARTHIKA BHAVAN, KARAYAD, ARIKULAM VILLAGE, MEPPAYUR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MEPPAYUR POLICE STATION, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3567 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.113/2009 of Meppayur Police Station, Kozhikode. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341, 326 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Section 326 is alleged on the ground that there was a loss of tooth of the defacto complainant. The case of the petitioner is that loss of tooth of the defacto complainant was much earlier to the date of incident and tooth was lost due to some disease. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I passed an order dated 29/07/2009, which reads as follows: “The specific case of the petitioner is that loss of tooth of the defacto complainant occurred much earlier to the incident and the tooth was lost due to B.A. No. 3567 /2009 2 some disease. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the wound certificate does not indicate so. The learned Public Prosecutor will get specific instruction with regard to the contention of the petitioner.” 5. Today the learned Public Prosecutor made available before me a statement recorded from Dr. K.M. Deepa, Asst. Surgeon. She has stated that on examination of the defacto complainant, loss of tooth was noticed. She also stated there was not much bleeding. The doctor is also of the opinion that the teeth of the defacto complainant are not very healthy and strong. If Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted, all other offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained 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 B.A. No. 3567 /2009 3 Rs.25,000/- 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. 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 scm