IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5104 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.821/2009 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. SALIM, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SAMUEL, MUNABATH THODI THEKKETHIL, PADAPPAKARA, MULAVANA VILLAGERIPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJU, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.SAMUEL, MUNABATH THODI THEKKETHIL, PADAPPAKARA, MULAVANA VILLAGERIPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. ANCHALOSE @ ANCHI, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MARIAPRAM, ANI NIVAS, PADAPPAKARA, MULAVANA VILLAGERIPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. FRANCIS, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MARIAPRAM, PRAVEEN AVENUE, PADAPPAKARA, MULAVANA VILLAGERIPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. JOHNSON, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.NELSON, LEYA VILASAM, PADAPPAKARA, MULAVANA VILLAGERIPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. SAMBOOT, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MICHEL, ADHIKARIVILA HOUSE, PADAPPAKARA, MULAVANA VILLAGERIPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. MADHU, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.JERO, MAHITHALAND, PADAPPAKARA, MULAVANA VILLAGERIPPALLY KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/ STATE: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5104 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of November, 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 in Crime No. 821/2009 of Kundara Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 23.09.2009, it was submitted that the disputes have been settled between the parties. Annexure A1 allegedly signed by the defacto complainant was also relied on. An order dated 23.09.2009 was passed, which reads as follows: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public prosecutor, 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. 0n 01.10.2009 and 3.10.2009. B.A. No. 5104 of 2009 2 Post on 06.10.2009. It is submitted by the learned Public prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No. 821 of 2009 Kundara Police Station. In view of the averment made by the petitioners that the disputes have been settled, the investigating officer would try to secure the presence of the defacto complainant as well. Hand over copy to both sides. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners have complied with the direction to appear before the investigating officer. The defacto complainant stated to the investigating officer that the disputes have not been settled. 5. 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 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. 15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. No. 5104 of 2009 3 A) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on all alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioners 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 to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln