IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5891 of 2011() CRMP.3146/2011 of J.M.F.C.-II,PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO.201 OF 2011 OF KONNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2. -------------------------------------------- RAJAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.BASHEER, RESIDING AT VALUPARAMPIL HOUSE, MANGARAM, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.C.D.ANIL SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 5891 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.201 of 2011 of Konni Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 18.5.2011. The petitioner was arrested on 10.7.2011. 4. The petitioner had filed B.A.No.4295 of 2011 before this Court praying for anticipatory bail. That application was disposed of as per the order dated 9.6.2011, directing the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer either on 20.6.2011 or on 21.6.2011. Certain directions were also issued as to what should be done after the surrender. Later, as per the order dated 8.7.2011, the petitioner was BAIL APPL. NO.5891 OF 2011 :: 2 :: permitted to surrender either on 15.7.2011 or on 16.7.2011. 5. The petitioner was arrested on 10.7.2011, before the extended date fixed for surrender. 6. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 29.7.2011, the following order was passed: “The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the order in B.A.No.4295 of 2011, he was directed to appear before the investigating officer on 20.6.2011 or on 21.6.2011. He could not surrender on those dates as his father was hospitalized. Later, the petitioner filed Crl.M.Application No.4234 of 2011 in which, as per the order dated 8.7.2011, time for surrender was extended and the dates were re-fixed as 15.7.2011 or 16.7.2011. It is submitted that the petitioner produced the order dated 8.7.2011 before the investigating officer on 10.7.2011. Disregarding the order, the petitioner was arrested on 10.7.2011 and he was produced before the learned Magistrate. 2. The learned counsel also made a very serious allegation that the investigating officer is using the Scorpio BAIL APPL. NO.5891 OF 2011 :: 3 :: car belonging to the defacto complainant for his personal purposes. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the application filed before the Magistrate's Court, mention was made about the order dated 8.7.2011 passed by this court. The petitioner prays for time to produce copy of the said application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant was treated in the General Hospital, Pathanamthitta on 18.5.2011 and the wound certificate issued by the medical officer would not show serious injuries. It is submitted that that wound certificate was suppressed by the prosecution and another wound certificate appears to have been obtained. 5. All these allegations require answer by the prosecutor. The relevant records must also be produced.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced before me the Bail Application submitted by the petitioner before the Magistrate's Court. There is no mention in that Bail Application that the order dated 8.7.2011 was produced before the investigating officer. Learned Public BAIL APPL. NO.5891 OF 2011 :: 4 :: Prosecutor submitted that the order dated 8.7.2011 was not produced before the investigating officer. It is submitted that had that order been produced, the investigating officer would not have arrested the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor produced before me the discharge card in respect of the de facto complainant, which indicates that he had sustained fracture. 8. Now the question to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.7.2011. 9. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner. 10. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rupees Twenty five thousand with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Pathanamthitta, subject to the following conditions: BAIL APPL. NO.5891 OF 2011 :: 5 :: a) The petitioner 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) 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 as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/