IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6575 of 2009 CRIME NO.1088 OF 2009 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VARGHESE, S/O.SAMUEL, "MELEL", PUTHUVEL JUNCTION, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6575 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of November, 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 first accused in Crime No.1088 of 2009 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b), 332 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 9.10.2009 at 9 PM, the police party went to the house of the petitioner in search of one Shaiju, accused in a case and who is the brother of the petitioner. It is alleged that the accused persons obstructed the official duties of the de facto complainant and other policemen and also locked the de facto complainant in a room. 4. The petitioner tells a different story. It is stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Bail Application thus: B.A. NO. 6575 OF 2009 :: 2 :: “3. It is most respectfully submitted that on 09.10.2009 at about 10 p.m., the Sub Inspector of Police, Pathanapuram along with other police constables, had rushed to the petitioner's house, entered his bedroom and abused him in ulmost filthy languages in the presence of his wife, who was then feeding the baby. According to them they are in search of Shaiju who is the brother of the petitioner and who was accused in Crime No.677/2009 of Pathanapuram Police Station. The police caught hold of the petitioner and threatened his wife that unless Shaiju is not made available to them, the petitioner and his family will have to face its dire consequences. The elder child of the petitioner, who is of the age of 5, on seeing their parents in the captivity of the police had frightened and shouted for help. The aged parents of the petitioner also shouted for help. This made the neighbourhood to come to this spot and a commotion took place. The neighbourhoold came to the help of the petitioner and his family and had warned the police to retreat from the scene and come back for any sought of investigation in the day light only. The police repeated the threat and vanished from the scene. 4. It is submitted that before leaving from the scene the police had also threatened the aged parents using abusive languages and warned that they would B.A. NO. 6575 OF 2009 :: 3 :: come again next day come prepared. Even the old and ailing parents of the petitioner are not spared by the police. The minor child of the petitioner got frightened at the hue and cry unleashed by the police, falling into fits of extreme abnormality, aggravating its already bad mental condition. The petitioner, in this situation was advised to prefer a complaint against the atrocities of Pathanapuram Police. The next day the petitioner brought this to the notice of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punalur and narrated the whole incident seeking remedial action, but without any result. Thus, in order to evade from any legal action against him from the petitioner, as a pre-emptive measure, the Sub Inspector of Police had suo moto registered a Crime against the petitioner alleging offences under section 294(b), 332, 342, 34 I.P.C.” 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence 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 Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. NO. 6575 OF 2009 :: 4 :: 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 ahz/