IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7863 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1856/2009 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 5 ---------------------------------------------- 1. SANOJ, S/O.RAGHU, AGED 26 YEARS, PALAPARAMBU HOUSE, NARAKKAL. 2. LIBISH, S/O.XAVIER, AGED 26 YEARS, PUTHENPURAYAKKAL HOUSE, ARATTU VAZHI, NARAKKAL. 3. BINOY, S/O.SHAKTHIDHARAN, AGED 21 YEARS, NIKATHITHARA HOUSE, ARATTU VAZHI, NARAKKAL. 4. RAJIN DAS, S/O.RAMESHAN, AGED 24 YEARS, ARATTU VAZHI, NARAKKAL. BY ADV. SMT.K.A.ANGEL TREENA SMT.ARLISS TRENCY ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NARAKKAL. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7863 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.1856 of 2009 of Narakkal Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 341 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 23.12.2009, the accused persons, six in number, attacked the de facto complainant with iron rods. The de facto complainant sustained fracture of nasal bone and left ulna. 4. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the prosecution case is that the first accused caught hold of the de facto complainant and at that time, accused No.2 inflicted grievous injuries on the de facto complainant with iron rod and accused Nos.3 to 5 beat him with hands and kicked him. 5. The overt acts alleged against accused Nos.3 to 5 do BA No.7863/2009 2 not relate to the grievous injuries sustained by the de facto complainant. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the accused persons, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the second accused (Sanoj - first petitioner). However, the case of petitioners 2 to 4 stands on a different footing, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 2, 3 and 4, who are accused Nos.3, 4 and 5. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 2 to 4, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioners 2 to 4 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) Petitioners 2 to 4 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; BA No.7863/2009 3 c) Petitioners 2 to 4 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) Petitioners 2 to 4 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner (accused No.2) and it is allowed to the extent indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 to 4 (accused Nos.3 to 5). K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl