IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 861 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.44/2010 OF PEERMADE POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- 1. THOMAS, S/O. CHACKO, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, HELIBERIA KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE. 2. VALSA, W/O. THOMAS, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, HELIBERIA KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE. 3. JOBIN, S/O. THOMAS,KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, HELIBERIA KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERMADE POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.861 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th 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 the accused in Crime No.44 of 2010 of Peermade Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 447, 427 and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant is the brother of the first petitioner. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the wife and son of the first petitioner. The case of the de facto complainant is that the accused persons cut and removed some trees standing on the property allotted to the de facto complainant in the partition. As per the partition, different items were allotted to the de facto complainant and the first petitioner. It is stated that there are disputes between the parties regarding the property. According to the de facto complainant, the trees stood in the property belonging to him, while according to the petitioners, the trees stood in the property belonging to the first petitioner. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the BA No.861/2010 2 case, the nature and gravity of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.10,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) 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