IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6383 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRMP.1342/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA Cr. NO.501/2009 OF KOIPPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- BALACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, PLACHERI HOUSE, VELLIYARA P.O., AYIROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.OOMMEN M. MATHEW SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOIPPURAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SRI.TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6383 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of December, 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.501/2009 of Koippuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b) and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 10/11/2009, the following order was passed: “ The de facto complainant and the accused are said to be relatives. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought two weeks' time to explore the possibilities of a settlement. Post after two weeks. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested till then in connection with Crime No.501/2009 of Koippuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta District.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a B.A. No. 6383 / 2009 2 memo dated 3/12/2009 stating that the defacto complainant and the petitioner are relatives and that the disputes between them have been settled amicably. An affidavit signed by the defacto complainant is also produced along with the memo. Though, it is stated in the memo that the court suggested a settlement, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a mistake and the correct state of affairs is as shown in the order dated 10/11/2009. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the subsequent developments, 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 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 petitioner 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.A. No. 6383 / 2009 3 B) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioner 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 allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm