IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7249 of 2011() -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.6788/2011 CRIME NO.848/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 : ------------------------------------------ SHABAD (MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS, THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, FATHER: N.P.MUHAMMAD KUNHI, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NALUPURAPPATTIL HOUSE, KARUVALAM, P.O.PADANNAKKAD, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ln K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No. 7249 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.848 of 2011 of Hosdurg Police Station. 2. The offences originally alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 341, 308 and 506(i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that subsequently some of the offences were deleted and now the offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second accused filed B.A.No.6788 of 2011 in which it was submitted before this court that the disputes between the parties were settled. The counsel refers to paragraph 4 of the order in B.A.No.6788 of 2011, which reads as follows: B.A. No. 7249 OF 2011 2 “Smt.Sudhamani.T, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.Madhu, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, submitted that the disputes between the parties have been settled. They also submitted that the injury sustained by the victim is not a very serious injury.” 4. 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 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 `10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on B.A. No. 7249 OF 2011 3 bail. D) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation. 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. cms