IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5070 of 2009(O) CRIME NO.576 OF 2009 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED: ------------------------------- 1. O.P.BIJAL @ BIJU, AGED 41, S/O.O.P.CHANDU PANICKER,RESIDING AT ONNAKKALI PARAMBATH,VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 2. P.SINDHU, AGED 33, W/O.BIJAL @ BIJU, RESIDING AT ONNAKKALI PARAMBATH, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK. 3. P.K.SURESH BABU, ATGED 44, S/O.KELU, PASHNOKANDIIL HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 4. RANJITH VISWANATHAN, AGED 40, S/O.VISWANATHAN, KUYYALIL HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SI OF POLICE, VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 5070 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of September, 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 the accused persons in Crime No.576 of 2009 of Vatakara Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners 3 and 4 are deleted from the array of parties. 4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 14.9.2009, the following order was passed: “The defacto complainant is father of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is daughter-in-law of the defacto complainant. B.A. NO. 5070 OF 2009 :: 2 :: The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The subject matter of the offence is three pension books and two gold rings. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that it would be ideal if the first petitioner is directed to appear before the investigating officer, so that the investigating officer may get necessary data from the first accused and the Investigating Officer may try to settle the dispute between the father and son. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 22/09/2009 at 9 AM. Post on 25/09/2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.576 of 2009 of Vatakara Police Station until further orders.” B.A. NO. 5070 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the directions in the order dated 14.9.2009 were complied with by the petitioners. 6. 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 petitioners 1 and 2. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 1 and 2, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; B.A. NO. 5070 OF 2009 :: 4 :: e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application has become unnecessary in so far petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned and the Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above in favour of petitioners 1 and 2. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/