IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3170 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.428/2010 OF GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. RAMESH, S/O.RAVINDRAN, MACHARIKALAYIL VEEDU, PEROOR VILLAGE AND KARA. 2. HANIFFA, S/O.IBRAHIM, INCHIKALAYIL VEEDU, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE PADINJATTUMBHAGAM KARA. 3. ASHURUF, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KARYATTAPIZHA HOUSE, PEROOR VILLAGE AND KARA. 4. BASHEER, S/O.ABDUL AZIZ, PARAPPURAM VEEDU, PEROOR VILLAGE AND KARA. 5. MUHAMMEDKUNJU, S/O.HASSANARU, KANUPARAMBIL VEEDU, PEROOR VILLAGE AND KARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.428/2010 OF GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 3170 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of May, 2010. ORDER Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Section 393, 332 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. On 11.5.2010, the forest officials got information that tiger skin was being transported in an autorickshaw. They reached the spot and intercepted the autorickshaw and arrested two persons from the spot. Others ran away. De facto complainant, who is a forest guard, was entrused to take the autorickshaw to the forest office and while attempting to take away the autorickshaw petitioners came to the pot, assaulted the forest guard and tried to remove the autorickshaw. Police came to the scene and petitioners were arrested from the spot and autorickshaw was taken into custody. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in respect of the same incident another case was registered as OR.12/2010 by the forest officials. A reading of the report and the F.I.R. in this case will show that both are contradictory to each other, it is submitted. Petitioners are in custody for the past 17 days. [B.A.No.3170/2010] 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection in granting regular bail to petitioners taking into consideration the stage of investigation. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be granted to petitioners on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, on the following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until further orders. (ii) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any witness or temper with evidence. (iii) In case petitioners are involved in similar offence, bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.