IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 724 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.1316/2009 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 -------------------------------------------------- 1. HELEN RAJ, S/O.JILLARIOUS, USHA VILASAM, MULAVANA, PADAPPAKKARA.PO, KOLLAM. 2. G.L. RAJ, S/O.JILLARIOUS, USHA VILASAM, MULAVANA, PADAPPAKKARA.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 724 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of February, 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 accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1316/2009 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam District. Petitioners along with four other accused had filed Bail Application No.7593/2009 for anticipatory bail, for the same relief sought for in the present Bail Application. Bail Application No. 7593/2009 was disposed of as per the order dated 13.01.2010, which reads as follows: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7 in Crime No.1316/2009 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 354, 308 and 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 06.12.2009, the accused persons formed B.A. No. 724 of 2010 2 themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the de facto complainant and his wife. The de facto complainant sustained severe injuries including a fracture on his right humerus. 4. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Bail Application, it is stated thus: 'Apart from the version of prosecution the facts of the case is submitted by the petitioners as follows: The mother of the second accused was severely abused by de facto complainant using filthy language. De facto complainant went on even upto the extent of outraging the modesty of second petitioner's mother, and he started doing obscene acts in a drunken stage near public road. Finding no other alternative to immediately prevent and control de facto complainant from the said heinous act the public in the locality gathered at the place of occurrence strictly B.A. No. 724 of 2010 3 warned the de facto complainant not to repeat the said heinous act. Naturally there arose a verbal altercation between de facto complainant and the gathered public. Suddenly de facto complainant became violent and tried to manhandle some of the persons whoever gathered there. Consequently a scuffle occurred. In fact some daring public would have manhandled de facto complainant. But the petitioners have no role or responsibility in the said scuffle and its related crime. 4. The criminal background of de facto complainant is revealed as follows: Already de facto complainant has involved in several crimes in Kundara Police Station. He is usually armed with deadly weapons and used to conceal it. Petitioner came to know that de facto complainant is an accused in several B.A. No. 724 of 2010 4 offences under Arms Act, pending before Kollam Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. Also de facto complainant frequently provoke public and causes assault and riot. After that he would institute frivolous cases even against innocent person, who are his rivals. His next step is to bargain for money to compromise the criminal cases which is instituted by him against the innocent victims and thus swindle money using coercive method. By tactfully and preciously following the above narrated coercive method de facto complainant finds his livelihood. This modus operandi of de facto complainant is known to the entire public in the locality. Hence even the mere shadow of de facto complainant is causing sleepless nights to the common public especially to ladies and children. Recently de facto complainant B.A. No. 724 of 2010 5 grievously caused hurt to an autorickshaw driver in Kundara namely Babu with a chopper and hence another grave crime is registered in Kundara Police Station against de facto complainant. All the informations submitted before this Honourable Court reveals the criminal background of de facto complainant.' 5. An order was passed on 04.01.2010, directing the learned Public Prosecutor to get instructions with reference to the averments in Paragraphs 3 and 4 in the Bail Application. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has received written instructions. From the instructions, it is clear that the de facto complainant is involved in other cases. It is also disclosed that the mother of accused Nos.1 and 2 was convicted in an Abkari offence, in which the wife of the de facto complainant was a witness. Several other details are also furnished in the written instructions. I do not think that it is B.A. No. 724 of 2010 6 necessary to refer to the details in this order. 7. In the present case, the overt acts are mainly alleged against accused Nos.1 and 2. There is no allegation that accused Nos.4 to 7 had indulged in any overt act which resulted in the grievous injuries. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that Anticipatory Bail can be granted to accused Nos.1 and 2. At the same time, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 3 to 6(accused Nos. 4 to 7). There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners 3 to 6(accused Nos. 4 to 7), 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. No. 724 of 2010 7 A) Petitioners 3 to 6 shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) Petitioners 3 to 6 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) Petitioners 3 to 6 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) Petitioners 3 to 6 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 Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to accused Nos.1 and 2(petitioners 1 and 2) and it is B.A. No. 724 of 2010 8 allowed to the extent indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 3 to 6 (accused Nos. 4 to 7). 2. There is no change of circumstances or any other valid grounds warranting a second Bail Application being entertained for the grant of Anticipatory Bail at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln