IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 700 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.366/2007 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- SREEDHARAN O.K., S/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 42 YEARS, OLAKKARAN HOUSE, PRAPOYIL, CHERUPUZHA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.H.O., PERINGOME POLICE STATION, THALASSERY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.700 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused. Altogether there are two accused persons. They face allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable inter alia under Section 452 I.P.C. All other offences are bailable offences. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner had trespassed into the Sudha Memorial Clinic and had indulged in objectionable conduct against the doctor there and also her husband. The co-accused is alleged to have indulged in overt physical acts against the doctor and her husband. The petitioner was present along with the co-accused and did allegedly share the common intention. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the learned Sessions Judge had granted anticipatory bail to the first accused as per order dated 5/1/2008 in M.C.No.20/08 and though that fact was specifically brought to the notice of the learned Judge in paragraph 3 of the petition, the learned Sessions Judge had mechanically and without application of mind rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The order shows that the fact that the co-accused B.A.No.700/08 2 had been granted anticipatory bail had not been referred to at all. In any view of the matter, the contumacious involvement of the petitioner being qualitatively different and lesser than that of the co-accused and the co-accused having been granted anticipatory bail, there is no reason or justification for refusal to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. I find merit in the criticism raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application for anticipatory bail and I am satisfied in these circumstances that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to appropriate conditions which shall ensure the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation. 4. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioner. i) Petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 14/02/2008. He shall be released on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned B.A.No.700/08 3 Magistrate. ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m and 3 p.m on 15/02/2008 and 16/02/2008. During this period, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation in this crime. Thereafter the petitioner shall so appear on all Mondays between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of one month and subsequently as and when directed by the investigating officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law, as if these directions were not issued at all. (iv) If he were arrested prior to 14/02/2008, he shall be released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) without any sureties, undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 14/02/2008. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.700/08 4 B.A.No.700/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007