IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1416 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.682/09 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): 2ND ACCUSED. -------------------------------- RENJITH, KAVINCE VADAKKETHIL, ALA P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT. --------------------------- STATE OF KERALAM REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATI0N REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.1458/10 AND ANOTHER, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NOS.1416, 1458 & 1466 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 O R D E R These are applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. B.A.No.1416 of 2010 is filed by accused No.2 Renjith, B.A.No.1458 of 2010 is filed by accused No.4 Sajeev and B.A.No.1466 of 2010 is filed by accused No.5 Ajith in Crime No.682 of 2009 of Chengannur Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 2.9.2009. The prosecution case is that the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the de facto complainant with an iron rod. The de facto complainant sustained fracture of his left hand. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A. NOS.1416, 1458 & 1466 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 5. The injury resulting in the fracture is attributable to the attack made by accused No.1 with an iron rod. The overt acts attributed to accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 have not resulted in the fracture caused to the de facto complainant. 6. As per the order dated 17.3.2010 in B.A.Nos.1415 and 1467 of 2010, anticipatory bail was granted to accused No.6 Pradeep Kumar and the prayer for anticipatory bail made by accused No.1 Ajeesh was rejected. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. 8. 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.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. NOS.1416, 1458 & 1466 OF 2010 :: 3 :: a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays for a period of two months; b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioners 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. The Bail Applications are allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/