IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2007 / 19TH SRAVANA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 4829 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.380 OF 2007 OF THE NILAMBUR POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. MUHAMMED ALI, S/O. ALAVI HAJI, NECHIKANDAN HOUSE, KOOTTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. IBRAHIM, S/O ALAVI HAJI, NECHIKANDAN HOUSE, KOOTTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. FAIZAL, S/O. ALAVI HAJI, NECHIKANDAN HOUSE KOOTTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.4829 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2007 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face allegations, inter alia, under Section 365 r/w 149 I.P.C. The petitioners are accused 1to 3. There are 8 more unidentified accused also on the array of accused. 2. The crux of the allegations is that on 28.07.07, the petitioners allegedly went to their brother in law. The brother in law along with a friend of his and driver was available in a vehicle. The petitioners had a grievance that their brother in law was leading a wayward and indisciplined life and that his friends were taking advantage of such improper habits of his. The complaint is lodged by the said brother in law. In the complaint it is alleged that the petitioners along with others assaulted all the 3. The driver and the defacto complainant took to their heels. The victim one Hakkim, a friend of the defacto complainant was allegedly taken away in the vehicle by the accused persons. The crime was initially registered, inter alia, only under Section 363 I.P.C. Later the allegation under Section 365 I.P.C has also been added. The victim Hakkim has been seen by a medical officer. He has suffered no external injury. B.A.No.4829 of 2007 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a mountain is made out of a mole hill by the defacto complainant in collusion with the police. It is true that the petitioners as brother in laws of the defacto complainant were worried and anxious about the nature and quality of life which the brother in law led. They did want to chastise and advise the brother in law and persuade him to mend his ways. He needed to be rescued from his unprincipled friends. But it is incorrect to say that any assault was mounted on the brother in law or his friend. No injury whatsoever has been suffered. The brother in law has a lot of wealth with him and he has made use of wealth and power to influence the police to subsequently include an allegation under Section 365 I.P.C, which is the only non bailable offence alleged. It is prayed that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail subject to any appropriate conditions. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in any view of the matter acts of violence against the victim - a friend of the defacto complainant is not at all justified. Allegations show that an offence under Section 365 I.P.C has been committed. The fact that such allegation has been later included though that allegation was not there in the F.I.R cannot in any way affect the sustainability of such allegation. This is not a fit case where the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . B.A.No.4829 of 2007 3 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The case diary has been made available for my perusal. The F.I statement as also the wound certificate have been particularly perused by me. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, I am persuaded to agree that the petitioners are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. In coming to this conclusion, I have considered all the relevant inputs. Appropriate conditions can of course be imposed in the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation. 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 17.08.2007. They shall be enlarged on regular bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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 3 p.m on 18.08.2007, 19.08.2007 and 20.08.2007 and thereafter between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of 3 months. Subsequently the petitioners shall make themselves B.A.No.4829 of 2007 4 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 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 17.08.07 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released from custody on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 17.08.07. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-