IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5102 of 2011() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.327/2011 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT) ............... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1TO 5: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. BABU RAJ, PUTHENKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHINGOLI, KARTHIKAPPALLY,HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. RAJESH, RAJESH BHAVANAM, CHINGOLI, KARTHIKAPPALLY,HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. RAJENDRAN, RAJESH BHAVANAM, CHINGOLI, KARTHIKAPPALLY,HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THANKAMMA, PUTHENKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHINGOLI, KARTHIKAPPALLY,HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. SASIKALA, W/O.BABURAJ, PUTHENKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHINGOLI, KARTHIKAPPALLY,HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMSISION ON 04/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.5102 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4 th day of July, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.327 of 2011 of Kareelakulangara Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 452, 341, 324, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 7.6.2011 at 1.30 P.M., the accused persons forcibly entered into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked him and his family members with dangerous weapons. The motive alleged is that the defacto complainant gave information to the police about the trade of illicit liquor conducted by the first accused. The defacto B.A. No.5102 OF 2011 2 complainant and his family members sustained injuries. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are women. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to accused Nos.1 and 2. However, the case stands on a different footing in so far as it relates to accused Nos.3 to 5. The overt acts alleged against them are not as grave as in the case of accused Nos.1 and 2. 5 . Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 3 to 5. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 3 to 5, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail for a period of one month on their executing bond for `10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. No.5102 OF 2011 3 A) Petitioner No.3 shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) Petitioners 3 to 5 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) Petitioners 3 to 5 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) Petitioners 3 to 5 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) Before the expiry of the period mentioned above, petitioners 3 to 5 shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail. F) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to petitioners 1 and 2 and it is allowed to the extent indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 3 to 5. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms