IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5723 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1039/2009 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION ...................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4: -------------------------------------------- 1. BAIJU, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.T.K.KUNHIKUTTAN, THATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHOWANNUR P.O., KALLZHIKUNNU. 2. SONU, S/O.BAIJU, AGED 18 YEARS, DO. DO. 3. UNNIKUTTAN, S/O.THAMAN, AGED 18 YEARS, KALLATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLAZHIKUNNU, CHOWANNUR. 4. SUGHIL, AGED 18 YEARS, KOLACHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLAZHIKUNNU, CHOWANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5723 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 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 to 4 in Crime No. 1039/2009 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323, 324, 325, 354 and 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 19.09.2009 at 7.45 P.M., the accused persons trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked him, his daughter and his wife. The de facto complainant and his daughter were admitted in the hospital. The allegation against the fourth accused is that he used a bangle like article to hit the de facto complainant and his daughter. Injury was caused to the de facto complainant in his eyes. There is no case that the other accused persons used any weapon of offence. B.A. No. 5723 of 2009 2 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that Anticipatory Bail can be granted to accused Nos. 1 to 3(petitioners 1 to 3). At the same time, in the light of the materials produced, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to accused No.4(petitioner No.4). If anticipatory bail is granted to the fourth accused(fourth petitioner), it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Accused No.4 is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. However, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 1 to 3(accused Nos. 1 to 3). There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 1 to 3 (accused Nos. 1 to 3), 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. 5723 of 2009 3 A) Petitioners 1 to 3 (accused Nos. 1 to 3) 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 1 to 3 (accused Nos. 1 to 3) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) Petitioners 1 to 3 (accused Nos. 1 to 3) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) Petitioners 1 to 3(accused Nos. 1 to 3) 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 the fourth petitioner (fourth accused) and the Bail Application is allowed as indicated above, in so far as it relates to petitioners 1 to 3 (accused Nos.1 to 3). K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln