IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6371 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.672/2009 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION,IDUKKI DISTRICT) PETITIONERS(S): ---------------------------- 1. PAULOSE, S/O.KURUVILA, AGED 69 YEARS, VEENALIL VALARA KARA, 12TH MILE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. BYJU, S/O.PAULOSE, VEENALIL, VALARA KARA, 12TH MILE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV.MR.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.672/2009 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6371 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of December, 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 accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.672/2009 of Adimaly Police Station, Idukki. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323, 324, 394 and 450 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 05/11/2009, the following order was passed: “Petitioners herein are the father and brother of the defacto complainant. Annexure-1 is an F.I.R. registered against the defacto complainant in the present case at the instance of the wife of the second accused herein. Annexure-3 relates to Crime No. 674/2009 in which the first petitioner herein is the defacto complainant and his daughter is the accused. In view of the relationship between the parties, B.A. No. 6371/2009 2 the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he would explore the possibilities of a settlement between the parties. Post after two weeks. The undertaking not to arrest the petitioners will continue to be in force until further orders.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor that the parties have settled the disputes between them. 5. 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 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 on their executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- 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 appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B.A. No. 6371/2009 3 B) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioners 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 scm