IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6297 of 2009(F) ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.289/2009 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. SAMEER ARAYAPPURATH, AGED 26 YEARS (A1) S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, RESIDING AT VANGAD P.O., PADIOTCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SUBAIR ARAYAPPURATH, AGED 28 YEARS(A2) S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, RESIDING AT VANGAD P.O., PADIOTCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. SUMESH A.S., AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.MUKUNDAN, RESIDING AT VANGAD P.O., PADIOTCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. SIJI PHILIP, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT VANGAD P.O., PADIOTCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. SAJAN PHILIP, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT VANGAD P.O., PADIOTCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. GURULAL K.M., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MAHESHAN, RESIDING AT VANGAD P.O., PADIOTCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENT/STATE: --------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SHO HOSDURG POLICE STATION. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6297 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.289/2009 of Peringome Police Station, Kannur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 326 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 11/10/2009, the accused attacked five persons, who came in a Scorpio Car to the house of the second accused. 4. It is submitted that another crime, namely, Crime No.288/2009, was registered in respect of an incident which took place on the same date. In Crime No.288/2009, accused No.2 in Crime No.289/2009 is the de facto complainant. The accused persons in Crime No.288/2009 are the persons, who were allegedly attacked by the accused in Crime No.289/2009. 5. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on B.A. No. 6297/ 2009 2 16/12/2009, the following order was passed: “The counsel appearing for the parties submit that two cases were registered in respect of the incident which took place on 11.10.2009, namely, Crime Nos. 288 of 2009 and 289 of 2009. Persons on either side sustained grievous injuries. The parties are known to each other. The counsel also submit that the parties may be given an opportunity to settle the whole dispute. The request is just and reasonable. Post in the 2nd week of January 2010. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners will not be arrested in the aforesaid crimes till then.” 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and his friends in the connected case, namely, B.A. No.6815/2009, submitted that the parties have settled the matter. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of B.A. No. 6297/ 2009 3 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. 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 scm