IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 505 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.535 OF 2007 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1-4 ------------------------------------ 1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.MADHAVAN,BIJIN BHAVAN,CHACHIPUNNA,PUNNALA. 2. ANISH, S/O.PUSHKARAN,SREEMANGALATH,CHACHIPUNNA,PUNNALA. 3. SARAN MITRA,S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER MANGALATHU VEEDU,CHACHIPUNNA,PUNNALA. 4. AJEESH,S/O.CHANDRADHATHAN MANGALATHU VEEDU,CHACHIPUNNA,PUNNALA. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 535 OF 2007 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.505 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 to 4. They face allegations under Section 452 I.P.C as also the provisions of the Kerala (Prevention of Disturbance of Public Meeting) Act, 1961. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioners trespassed into a building where a meeting was being held and attempted to disturb the said meeting. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations raised are fanciful. 1st petitioner was the President of the S.N.D.P Yogam. He had resigned from that post and the short request of the petitioners' was that no meeting should be held before re-election is conducted. The peaceful protest and objections raised are picturised as a disturbance to the meeting and house trespass into the venue of the meeting. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. They are willing to abide by any appropriate terms and conditions. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application. The learned Public Prosecutor only prays that appropriate conditions may be imposed. B.A.No.505 of 2008 2 4. I am satisfied that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. 5. In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 06.02.08. They shall be enlarged on regular bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 4 p.m on 07.02.08 and 08.02.08. During this period, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps the proper conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so; iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall B.A.No.505 of 2008 3 thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all; iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 06.02.08 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released from custody on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 06.02.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-