IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1867 of 2010 CRIME NO.102 OF 2010 OF ENATHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: -------------------------------------- SUMOD, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SADASIVAN NAIR, SUMOD BHAVAN, NADUVILA MURI, MANNADI P.O., ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO.102 OF 2010 OF ENATHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1867 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.102 of 2010 of Enathu Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 13.3.2010 at 2.30 AM while the de facto complainant, an autorickshaw driver, came to the premises of a temple to take passengers on the festival day, he was attacked by the accused persons with granite pieces and he was beaten by them. The medical examination reveals that the de facto complainant had sustained “linear fracture - left inferior orbital margin.” 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. On a perusal of the case diary, it is seen that the fracture injury sustained by the de facto BA No.1867/2010 2 complainant is attributable to the assault made by the first accused. No grievous hurt was caused as a result of the assault allegedly made by the other accused. 5. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 moved Bail Application No.1730 of 2010 for anticipatory bail. That application was disposed of as per the order dated 25th March, 2010. Anticipatory bail was granted to accused Nos.3 and 4 while the prayer made by the first accused was rejected. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner 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) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; BA No.1867/2010 3 c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioner 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 allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl