IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5888 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2114/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO. 506/2008 OF PALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED 1 TO 4: -------------------- 1. RATHEESH, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, 26 YEARS KULATHINKAL HOUSE, EDAMATTOM KARA POOVARANI VILLAGE 2. BINU.G., S/O.GOPI, 26 YEARS AYKKARA HOUSE, EDAMATTOM KARA, POOVARANI VILLAGE 3. RAJAN.K.M., S/O.MADHAVAN, 31 YEARS, KUZHIPALAYIL HOUSE, EDAMATTOMA KARA POOVARANI VILLAGE. 4. DENNY XAVIER, S/O.XAVIER, 29 YEARS CHAKKALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAMATTOM KARA POOVARANI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 5888 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 332, 341, 294(b) read with section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, defacto- complainant was on his way back, after making an enquiry in a petition, and he was riding a motor bike. An autorickshaw was coming from the opposite side, which was driven by 1st accused, in which others were travelling. Defacto-complainant stopped the vehicle, since there was no space on the road to move forward. But, one of the accused then, got out of the autorickshaw and abused defacto-complainant and all of the accused assaulted defacto-complainant and interfered with the discharge of his official duty. On a complaint lodged by defacto-complainant, a crime was registered against four identifiable persons who are petitioners herein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st accused was driving the autorickshaw, in which accused 3 and 4 were travelling, while defacto-complainant was coming from the opposite side in a motor bike. He was in mufti. He got offended and questioned the autorickshaw driver why he was not giving side to his vehicle. There was an altercation between accused 3 and 4 and defacto-complainant and exchange of words. Later, BA 5888/08 -2- they came to know that defacto-complainant is a police constable people of the locality gathered there and the matter was settled between the parties. Later, a complaint was lodged against four persons. The owner of the autorickshaw who is the 2nd accused who was not even present at the scene was implicated in the crime. Petitioners apprehend detention and harassment. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the case diary, the incident happened in some other manner and not as alleged by petitioner. It is true that defacto-complainant was in mufti, but all the accused assaulted him. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners on conditions. 6. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today , and if any application is filed, petitioners shall be released on bail, on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the BA 5888/08 -3- Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. iii) Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.