IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5061 of 2009 CRIME NO.352 OF 2009 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 -------------------------------------------- 1. GLADSON MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 20 YEARS, NOCHUMANNIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPADY AMSOM DESOM, MYLELLAMPARA P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. JERIN JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 19 YEARS, KOPPOZHAKKAL HOUSE, MYLELLAMPARA P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 5061 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 1.3.2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.352/2009 of Thamarassery Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the P.D.P.P Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused attacked the de facto complainant, while on duty, who was working as a conductor in a K.S.R.T.C. Bus. 4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on various dates, it was submitted that as a part of the settlement, the driver and conductor of the bus were compensated, as a result of the mediation talk held B.A. NO. 5061 OF 2009 :: 2 :: at the instance of the Trade Union Leaders. It was also submitted that the petitioners are prepared to compensate the K.S.R.T.C for the loss sustained by them. The first petitioner has filed an affidavit and stated thus: “On 9/10/2009 myself, second petitioner and our parents, Sri. George M Thomas, MLA, Varghese Simon (Advocate), De facto complainant K.C. Sasi (conductor) Sri. Dasan (driver), the KSRTC Union Leader, Sri. Pramod, KSRTC Employees Association and other Union Members sat together and settled the dispute. As per the joint decision taken in the meeting, it was decided to give Rs.25,000/- to the de facto complainant and Rs.5,000/- to driver Dasan. On the same day Second Petitioners father Mr. Joseph entrusted Rs.30,000/- to the union leader to Mr. Pramod. It was also decided in the meeting that our parents will contact KSRTC officials to compensate the loss and settle the claim. On the basis of that the second petitioners father Mr. Joseph contacted the Hon'ble minister of Transport Sri. Jose Thattayal by filing a representation. Considering the representation, minister gave direction to meet the Managing Director of KSRTC. The second petitioners father Mr. Joseph approached the managing B.A. NO. 5061 OF 2009 :: 3 :: director KSRTC and accordingly managing director given direction to RTO, Kozhikode to compute the loss. The RTO, Kozhikode calculated the loss at Rs.15,000/-, our parents was ready to meet the loss but RTO, kozhikode is not ready to accept the money because there is a charge against us under PDPP Act hence the RTO want a specific direction to receive the amount. We are ready to compensate the loss of KSRTC to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. We already paid Rs.30,000/- to Mr. Pramod as he was the mediator.” 5. In 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 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 8th March, 2010. 6. Post on 12/03/2010. 7. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No. 352 of 2009 of Thamarassery Police Station. B.A. NO. 5061 OF 2009 :: 4 :: The petitioners 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 direction in the order dated 1.3.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 1.3.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.10,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; B.A. NO. 5061 OF 2009 :: 5 :: d) 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 ahz/