IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5616 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.147/2009 OF PARASALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- DINESH, S/O.M.VARGHESE, AGED 18 YEARS, JOSE BHAVAN, PUTHENKADA, PARASALA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5616 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.147 of 2009 of Parasala Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 454 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 30.10.2009, the following order was passed: “The de facto complainant is the grandmother of the petitioner. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.147 of 2009 of Parasala Police Station. 2. The allegation is that the petitioner snatched away the gold ornaments of his grandmother. The grandmother is aged more than 80 years. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to settle the dispute with his grandmother and give her ornaments having same weight or the value of the BA No.5616/2009 2 same. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 6th and 7th November, 2009. The investigating officer shall make arrangements for a meeting of the petitioner with his grandmother, so that, they could explore the possibilities of settlement. Post after two weeks. 5. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.147 of 2009 of Parasala Police Station, Thiruvanthapuram. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction contained in the order dated 30.10.2009 has been complied with by the petitioner. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction contained in the order dated 30.10.2009 has BA No.5616/2009 3 been complied with by the petitioner, 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 on his executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl