IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1559 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------- Cr. NO.166/2010 OF ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 10: ----------------------------------------------- 1. MITHIN.E.P, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. PAVITHRAN, EZHUMAPADI (H), ALAPPAD.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT (A1) 2. SUNIL, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, KARAYIL (H), ALAPPAD.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT (A2) 3. T.K. YOUSEH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMED, THERUVATHU (H), CHAZHUR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT (A3) 4. K.D. DHANEESH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. DARMMA DEERAQN, KODAPPULLY HOUSE, CHAZHUR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT (A4) 5. FAISAL, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. ABDULKARIYA, NEDUMPURAYIL (H), ALAPPAD.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT (A5) 6. SHEMEERI, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. UMER KARIPAKULAM (H), ALAPPAD.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT (A6) 7. T.V. SHAJI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. BALAN, THEKKEPURAKKAL (H), ALAPPAD.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 8. SANULA.K.S, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. HARILAL, KUNNATH HOUSE, ALAPPAD.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT (A8) 9. DEEPU, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. DIVAKARAN, PALLIPAADMANA (H), CHAZHUR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT (A9) 10. JAYADAS.K.M, S/O. MOHANDAS, KUNNATH HOUSE, ALAPPAD.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT (A10) BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SMT.MOLLY KOSHY RESPONDENT/ STATE: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.1559 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 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 10 in Cr.No.166/2010 of Anthikkad Police Station, Thrissur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 3/3/2010, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant and his friends and caused grievous hurt to the de facto complainant. It is seen that the grievous hurt sustained by the de facto complainant is attributable to the overt act done by accused No.1. The overt acts alleged against the other accused persons have not resulted in any grievous hurt on the de facto complainant. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the first petitioner (first accused) is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the B.A. No.1559/2010 2 Code of Criminal Procedure. Taking into account the allegations levelled against the first petitioner and the nature of the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant, the discretionary relief under Section 438 cannot be extended in favour of the first petitioner. However, the case against the other petitioners stand on a different footing. As stated earlier, the overt acts committed by them have not caused any grievous hurt to the de facto complainant. Therefore, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 2 to 10 (accused Nos.2 to 10). 5. Accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 2 to 10 (accused Nos.2 to 10), 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 2 to 10 (accused Nos.2 to 10) 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) Petitioners 2 to 10 (accused Nos.2 to 10) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B.A. No.1559/2010 3 C) Petitioners 2 to 10 (accused Nos.2 to 10) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; D) Petitioners 2 to 10 (accused Nos.2 to 10) 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. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner(first accused) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 to 10 (accused Nos.2 to 10) . ` K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm