IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7487 of 2009() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 277/2009 OF IRIKKUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------ 1. MANOHARAN, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN, MADAYAN, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM, CHEDICHERRY P.O., PERUVALATHPARAMBA, KANNUR DIST. 2. SANTHOSH, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN, 32 YEARS RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM, CHEDICHERRY P.O., PERUVALATHPARAMBA, KANNUR DIST. 3. RAJESH, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN, 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM, CHEDICHERRY P.O., PERUVALATHPARAMBA, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IRRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DIST. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON 05/01/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7487 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010 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 to 3 in Crime No.277/2009 of Irikkur Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: There is a dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and the defacto complainant and others on the other hand regarding as to who should be the Madayan of the Muthappan Madapura of the place. It is stated that the civil suit is pending between the parties. The allegation is that on 23.11.2009 at 6.15 P.M., the accused persons forcibly entered into the Madapura and attacked the de facto complainant. The second accused hit the de facto complainant with a traditional lamp (Nilavilakku), which resulted in the fracture of his left ulna. The allegation is that the other accused had beaten the de facto complainant with hands. B.A. No. 7487 of 2009 2 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the second accused is entitled to get Anticipatory Bail. The position of accused Nos.1 and 3(petitioners 1 and 3) stands on a different footing. I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 1 and 3. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners 1 and 3, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their 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) Petitioners 1 and 3(accused Nos.1 and 3) 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) Petitioners1 and 3(accused Nos.1 and 3) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) Petitioners 1 and 3(accused Nos.1 and 3) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) Petitioners 1 and 3(accused Nos.1 and 3) shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. B.A. No. 7487 of 2009 3 E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed in so far it relates to petitioners 1 and 3 (accused Nos.1 and 3) to the extent indicated above and it is dismissed in so far it relates to second petitioner (accused No.2) K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln