IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4218 of 2009 CRIME NO.522 OF 2007 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED: ---------------------------- T.RAJESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, SREEKRISHNA NIVAS, P.O.THAYYIL, KANNUR-2. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 4218 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th August, 2009 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.1 in Crime No.522 of 2007 of the Kannur Town Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 13.10.2007, three persons committed the offence. The de facto complainant was proceeding towards his house. The accused persons demanded money to drink toddy. The de facto complainant refused. Thereupon, the accused persons inflicted injuries on his hand and forcibly took away Rs.12,000/- and a mobile phone from the de facto complainant. 4. The petitioner filed Crl.M.C.No.2105 of 2009 to quash the case against him on the ground that the de facto complainant has stated that he has no grievance against the petitioner. An affidavit is B.A. NO. 4218 OF 2009 :: 2 :: filed by the de facto complainant stating that he stated the name of the petitioner by mistake and that the petitioner is not involved in the offence. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation reveals that the petitioner is involved in the offence. Subsequently, there was some sort of understanding between the de facto complainant and the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that such an understanding would not absolve the petitioner from the offence. 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 appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B.A. NO. 4218 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 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 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 ahz/