IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7175 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 648/2009 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION .......................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- 1. DAVID, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.VINCEND, RESIDING AT KOTTOT PADINJATTATHIL, THEKKUMBHAGAM, ERAVIPOURAM, KOLLAM. 2. PINI, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. PETER, KOTTOR PADINJATTATHIL, THEKKUMBHAGOM, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7175 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th 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 petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 4 in Crime No. 648/2009 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 452, 326, 324 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 04.11.2009, the defacto complainant, a woman who was running a 'Thattukada' was attacked by the accused after criminally trespassing into her house. She sustained fracture on the left forearm. The attack was made with an iron pipe. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in the F.I. Statement, the defacto complainant had stated that the son of younger brother of the first accused was involved in the offence. Accordingly, he was shown as the fourth accused. Later, a report was filed by the investigating officer on B.A. No. 7175 of 2009 2 19.11.2009 stating that the son of the younger brother of the first accused was not involved in the offence and that the second petitioner herein was the person who was involved in the offence. Accordingly, the second petitioner was included as the fourth accused. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other circumstances, I am not inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to the first accused. However, I am of the view that Anticipatory Bail can be granted to the second petitioner (fourth accused). 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/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The second petitioner(fourth accused) 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) The second petitioner(fourth accused) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B.A. No. 7175 of 2009 3 C) The second petitioner(fourth accused) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The second petitioner(fourth accused) 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 accordingly dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner(first accused) and it is allowed in so far as it relates to the second petitioner(fourth accused) in the manner indicated above . K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln