IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT SATURDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2008 / 15TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 668 of 2008() ---------------------------- [CRIME NO.29/2008 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION] : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- THANKAPPA RAWTHER, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O SULAIMAN RAWTHER, PALLIMUKKU PALAMOOTTIL VEEDU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.SMITHA DIVAKARAN SRI.SREEVALSAN.V RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON 05/01/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.668 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable inter alia under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had intimidated and threatened the de facto complainant by the show of dangerous weapons on 6/1/2008. F.I.R was not lodged till 10/1/2008. The de facto complainant or anyone else has not suffered any injuries in the incident that allegedly took place. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner wanted the de facto complainant to sell an item of property to him. He had refused to oblige. Because of this animosity, he allegedly threatened the de facto complainant and intimidated him by showing dangerous weapons which he had in his possession. F.I.R was lodged long later on 10/1/2008. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are totally false. Infact, the earlier complaint dated 17/10/2007 was filed against the de facto complainant and B.A.No.668/08 2 the present complaint is only a belated response to that earlier complaint and the intention is only to vex and harass the petitioner. Subject to appropriate conditions, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application and in the facts and circumstances of this case to which I have already referred above, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to appropriate terms and conditions. 4. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioner. i) Petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 12/02/2008. He shall be released on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m B.A.No.668/08 3 and 1 p.m on 13/02/2008. During this period, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation in this crime. Thereafter the petitioner shall so appear as and when directed by the investigating officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law, as if these directions were not issued at all. (iv) If he were arrested prior to 12/02/2008, he shall be released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) without any sureties, undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 12/02/2008. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.668/08 4 B.A.No.668/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007