IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5404 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ CRIME No.335/2009 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5: -------------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU K.V.,S/O.BHARATHAN, EDAYILAKKAD, PADANE,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. SREEJITH, S/O.SREEDHARAN, EDAYILAKKAD, PADANE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 3. RANJITH,S/O.PADMAVATHI, EDAYILAKKAD, PADANE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. PREMJITH, S/O.SASI,EDAYILAKKAD, PADANE, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. RANJITH, S/O. RAMESHAN, EDAYILAKKAD, PADANE, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5404 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 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 5 in Crime No.335/2009 of Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 6/9/2009. The prosecution case is that Section 326 is attracted because of rupture of Eardrum of the defacto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that there is no allegation of any weapon of offence having been used for the commission of the offence in so far as it relates to the aforesaid injury and therefore, Section 326 is not attracted. Even if that injury was caused, it would attract only Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 325 is a bailable offence. B.A. No. 5404 /2009 2 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the F.I. statement there is mention of a stone having been used as a weapon of offence. It is true. But that does not relate to the injury attributable to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. For the purpose of disposal of this Bail Application, it is not necessary to arrive at a final conclusion on this point. I am referring only the submissions made by both sides. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioners shall not try to influence the B.A. No. 5404 /2009 3 prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm