IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1730 of 2010 CRIME NO.102 OF 2010 OF ENATHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1,3, &4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. AKHIL, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. VIKRAMAN PILLAI, PARAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KALAYIKKU PADINJARE MURI, KADAMBANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. 2. SHYAMKUMAR, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, SALINI BHAVAN, NADUVELE MURI, MANNADI, KADAMBANADU VILLAGE. 3. PRAMOD KUMAR, AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN PILLAI, PERINJATHIL THEKKATHIL MUKHAMURI, KADAMBANADU VILLAG, 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.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1730 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of March, 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, 4 and 3 in Crime No.102 of 2010 of Enathu Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners 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”. B.A. NO. 1730 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. On a perusal of the case diary, it is seen that the fracture injury sustained by the de facto 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. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injury sustained by the de facto complainant, I do not think that anticipatory bail can be granted to the first petitioner (first accused). However, the case against accused Nos.3 and 4 stands on a different footing. The overt acts alleged against them are not directly attributable to any grievous hurt caused to the de facto complainant. Therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to accused Nos.3 and 4 who are respectively petitioners 3 and 2 in this Bail Application. 6. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.4 and 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 each for the like B.A. NO. 1730 OF 2010 :: 3 :: amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.4 and 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) The petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.4 and 3) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.4 and 3) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.4 and 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 first petitioner (first accused) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.4 and 3). (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/