IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 671 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.474/07 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN, KOLLAMKONATHU VADKETHIL VEEDU, SATHYAN NAGAR, ESTATE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 671 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.27 of the Arms Act. That is the only non-bailable offence alleged. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant and threatened him with a dangerous arm. He allegedly suffered an insignificant injury. There is no allegation that a sword was used for the infliction of any injury. What is the motive? It is stated that the accused were ill-disposed to the de facto complainant because he did not associate with them. What is the nature of association that was insisted or demanded? Significantly, even though the victim has given the First Information Statement and has been further questioned, no B.A. No. 671 OF 2008 -: 2 :- worthwhile queries have been made to the de facto complainant on this crucial and vital aspect. 2. I have gone through the Case Diary. It is unnecessary for me to advert to the facts in detail. Suffice it to say, the Case Diary reveals that a written complaint was earlier lodged in which the theory of the dangerous weapon being used is significantly absent. I find merit in the prayer for anticipatory bail. Notwithstanding the opposition of the learned Public Prosecutor, I am satisfied that directions under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. can be issued in favour of the petitioner. 3. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 13/2/2008. He shall be released on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 14/2/2008. Thereafter the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. B.A. No. 671 OF 2008 -: 3 :- (iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all; (iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 13/2/2008 as directed in clause (i) above, he shall be released on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 13/2/2008. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge