IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 882 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.42/2010 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. NOUFAL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.BICHU, RESIDING AT PADINHARAYIL HOUSE, CHEMANCHERY AMSOM AND DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. RAZAK, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA, RESIDING AT KALLUVECHA PURAYI CHEMANCHERY AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 882 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 23/02/2010, the following order was passed: “ This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No. 42/2010 of Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 12/1/2010, while the de facto complainant was engaged in the work of laying tiles, he found that the contractor was being assaulted by somebody. The de facto complainant went there and enquired why the contractor was being attacked. At that time, the first accused attacked the de facto complainant with an iron rod on his face. He lost a tooth as a result of that attack. The second accused also attacked the friends of the de facto complainant, who were working there. They also sustained injuries. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and also B.A. No. 882/2010 2 perused the Case Diary. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to accused No.1. The grievous hurt sustained by the de facto complainant is attributable to the overt act done by accused No.1. The first accused is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. However, the case of accused No.2 stands on a different footing. The grievous hurt sustained by the de facto complainant is not attributable to any overt act done by accused No.2. 6. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the second accused can be granted anticipatory bail subject to his appearance before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 2nd and 3rd March, 2010. 7. Post on 08/03/2010. 8. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the second petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No. 42 of 2010 of Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode. The second petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the B.A. No. 882/2010 3 second petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order dated 23/2/2010. 3. 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 second petitioner (second accused). There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the second petitioner (second accused), 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 second petitioner (second accused) 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 second petitioner (second accused) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The second petitioner (second accused) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; D) The second petitioner (second accused) commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; B.A. No. 882/2010 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 as it relates to the first petitioner (first accused) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to the second petitioner (second accused). K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm