IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2256 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.124/2009 OF KUTTIADY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- BABU P., S/O. POKKAN, PADINJARAYIL, NARIPATTA, KALLACHI, NARIPPATTA AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIADY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------- B.A.No.2256 of 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.124 of 2009 of Kuttiady Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner are under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506(i) and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that section 308 IPC was not included originally. But, it was included only to see that the petitioner and other accused are not granted bail. It is also pointed out that accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7 were granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Judge on 4.4.2009 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.464 of 2009. He also submitted that the injuries noted in the wound certificate are not grievous injuries and they are only abrasions and tenderness. 4. I heard the counsel for the defacto complainant as well, who submitted that the prosecution is not very serious in BA No.2256/2009 2 properly prosecuting the case as the accused persons belong to the ruling political party. I have gone through the case diary. The defacto complainant is an advocate. The FI statement would also disclose that he had made a complaint against the accused persons on an earlier occasion on the allegation that the office of the Bharathiya Janatha Party was destroyed by the accused persons. It would appear that there are disputes on political rivalry between the parties. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. 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 for a period of one month on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner 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; BA No.2256/2009 3 B) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) On the expiry of the period mentioned above, the petitioner 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 allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE csl BA No.2256/2009 4 K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl BA No.2256/2009 5