IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6510 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.620/2009 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DIST. ............. PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------- NARENDRAN, S/O.VASU, NILAMPILLY HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.6510 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 10/02/2010, the following order was passed: “ This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.620 of 2009 of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 23.10.2009, the de facto complainant and others went near the house of the petitioner to ask as to why he attacked the brother of the de facto complainant. At that time, the petitioner came out of the house and attacked the de facto complainant and two others with wooden reaper. It is alleged that the de facto complainant sustained fracture on the forefinger and one Vinod sustained fracture of ulna of left forearm. The petitioner alleges that he sustained injuries on account of the attack made by the de facto complainant, Manoj and Vinod on 23.10.2009 and he had sustained fracture of his B.A. No.6510 / 2009 2 nasal bone. Crime No.619 of 2009 was registered on the basis of the information given by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner and the de facto complainant are relatives. Both of them sustained injuries. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 17.2.2010 and 18.2.2010. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. Post on 24.2.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.620 of 2009 of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur District. ” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order dated 10/02/2010. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the B.A. No.6510 / 2009 3 case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the 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 petitioner 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 petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; D) The petitioner 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 allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm