IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3212 of 2009 CRIME NO.529 OF 2009 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. VISANTH KUMAR, VALLYARAYIL LAKSHAMVEED, THENGELI P.O. 2. RONY VARGHESE, -DO- 3. ABHILASH, THYPARAMPIL, NANNOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3212 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd June, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.529 of 2009 of Thiruvalla Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant is a gate keeper of Indian Railways at Thiruvalla. His case is that while he was trying to open the gate after the train passed, the accused persons did not allow him to do so. By that time the next train came and that had to be stopped for about twenty minutes for want of signal. The de facto complainant informed the Station Master. The Railway Protection Force came and the de facto complainant was taken to the hospital. It is his case that the accused persons had beaten him with hands. 4. The accused persons said that they are students. Their case is that the mother of the first accused was being brought home after B.A. NO. 3212 OF 2009 :: 2 :: discharge from the hospital. After the train passed, the de facto complainant caused delay in opening the gate and there was exchange of words. People of the locality were aggrieved by the conduct of the gate keeper and they questioned his acts. The petitioners allege that this case is foisted by the de facto complainant in order to escape from the action that may be taken by the Department against him. 5. It is not necessary to consider which version is true. Any such venture would result in prejudice to either the prosecution or to the accused. However, I feel that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the conflicting versions and also taking into account the age of the petitioners, it is only proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail for a period of one month on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners 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 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B.A. NO. 3212 OF 2009 :: 3 :: c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) On the expiry of the period mentioned above, the petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail; f) 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/