IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5358 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.303/2009 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 3 TO 7 --------------------------------------------------- 1. FELIX @ RANA,AGED 33 YEARS,S/O.VICTOR, MALIKA VEEDU PURAYIDOM,PORT KOLLAM,KOLLAM. 2. RAMKUMAR @ SHYAM, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI,VETTIYILKIZHAKKATHIL, SAKTHIKULANGARA,MEENATHU CHERRY,KAVANADU.PO, KOLLAM. 3. SOORAJ,S.O.LEELAMMA, KATHIROORKIZHAKKATHIL,MEENATHU CHERRY,KAVANADU.PO, KOLLAM. 4. SATHEESH,S/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, THYVELLAYIL VEEDU,MEENATHU CHERRY,KAVANADU.P.O, KOLLAM. 5. VIJESH @ PINKY,S/O.VIJAYAN, KODIYILKIZHAKKATHIL,MEENATHU CHERRY, MAVANADU.P.O,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE P.PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5358 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.3 to 7 in Crime No.303 of 2009 of Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324 and 341 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 28.7.2009, the petitioners and the other accused trespassed into the residential compound of the de facto complainant and committed the offence as alleged. The petitioners have a different story. According to them, the first accused sustained grievous injuries as a result of the attack made by the brother of the de facto complainant and others with deadly weapons including swords. In that event, the first accused sustained grievous injuries. It is submitted that as no crime was registered by the police in BA No.5358/2009 2 respect of that incident, the first accused filed a complaint before the Magistrate's Court which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Now, the police has registered Crime No.335 of 2009 against the brother of the de facto complainant and others for the offences under Sections 326 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the fourth petitioner (sixth accused) was arrested on 16.9.2009, after the Bail Application was field. Therefore, the Bail application has become infructuous in so far as it relates to the fourth petitioner. Accused Nos.1 and 2 filed Bail application No.4971 of 2009 for anticipatory bail. That application was allowed by the order dated 7th September 2009. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 1 to 3 and 5. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 1 to 3 and 5, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to BA No.5358/2009 3 the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 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) Petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) Petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) Petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 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 dismissed as infructuous in so far as it relates to the fourth petitioner and the Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 1 to 3 and 5. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl