IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5048 of 2009 CRIME NO.509 OF 2009 OF MUNNAR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. MR.V.K.JAIN @ VIJAY KUMAR SETHIA, S/O.LATE RATANLAL SETHEIA, DIRECTOR, M/S.PREMIER (INDIA) BEARINGS LTD., RESIDING AT NO.41, ARMENIAN STREET, CHENNAI-600 001. 2. MR.S.K.CHORARIA, S/O.LATE BUDHMAL CHORARIA, DIRECTOR, M/S.PREMIER (INDIA) BEARINGS LTD., RESIDING AT NO.25, STRAND ROAD, KOLKOTTA-700 001. 3. MR.C.R.CHINDALIA, S/O.LATE KANNAIYAH LAL CHINDALIA, DIRECTOR, M/S.PREMIER (INDIA) BEARINGS LTD., RESIDING AT NO.25, STRAND ROAD, KOLKOTTA-700 001. 4. MR.RAJESH, S/O.POONAM CHAND DOTHRA, MANAGER, M/S.PREMIER (INDIA) BEARINGS LTD., RESIDING AT 44/51, BADNA BUILDINGS, SRM ROAD, LEISE JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNNAR POLICE STATION, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 5048 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Apprehending arrest in Crime No.509 of 2009 of Munnar Police Station, on an accusation of having committed offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, the petitioners filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are not accused persons in the Crime and only the first petitioner and one Jayaprakash Nayar are respectively accused Nos.1 and 2. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 21.12.2009, the following order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to B.A. NO. 5048 OF 2009 :: 2 :: appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 6th and 7th January, 2010. Post on 11.01.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.509 of 2009 of Munnar Police Station, Idukki. The petitioners shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 21.12.2009 has been complied with by the petitioners. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 21.12.2009 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the first petitioner. There will be a direction that in the B.A. NO. 5048 OF 2009 :: 3 :: event of the arrest of the first 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 first petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The first petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The first 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 in so far as it relates to the first petitioner and the Bail Application is closed in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 to 4 as petitioners 2 to 4 are not accused persons in the case. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/