IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1335 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.29/2010 OF THALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, WAYANADU DISTRICT .................... PETITIONERS : ACCUSED ------------------------------ 1. NAJEEB, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, VAZHAYIL HOUSE THALAPUZHA, 44TH MILE, MANANTHAWADY, WAYANADU. 2. SHAHEER SHAN, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.ABDULLAKUTTY, PALLIYAL HOUSE THALAPUZHA, 44TH MILE, MANANTHAWADY, WAYANADU. 3. SHABEER, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.AMEED, MAKKOOLE HOUSE THALAPUZHA, 44TH MILE, MANANTHAWADY, WAYANADU. 4. UNAISE, AGED 21 YEARS S/O.HUSSAIN, THARAVAKKAL HOUSE THALAPUZHA, 44TH MILE, MANANTHAWADY, WAYANADU. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1335 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.29 of 2010 of Thalappuzha Police Station, Wayanadu District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 447 and 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 9.3.2010, 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 appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 16th and 17th March, 2010. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the order BA No.1335/2010 2 before the investigating officer. Post on 23rd March, 2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.29 of 2010 of Thalappuzha Police Station, Wayanad District.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that only petitioners 3 and 4 (accused Nos.3 and 4) have complied with the direction contained in the order dated 9th March, 2010. The petitioners 1 and 2 who are accused Nos.1 and 2 did not comply with the direction. 5. Since petitioners 1 and 2 did not comply with the direction contained in the order dated 9th March, 2010, I am of the view that they are not entitled to any discretionary relief. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 1 and 2. 6. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also BA No.1335/2010 3 taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 9.3.2010 has been complied with by petitioners 3 and 4, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 3 and 4. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 3 and 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 3 and 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 3 and 4 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) Petitioners 3 and 4 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) Petitioners 3 and 4 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; BA No.1335/2010 4 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 it relates to petitioners 1 and 2 and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 3 and 4. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl