IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4993 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 402/2007 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 3 & 5 :- ------------------------------------------------ 1. JOBY, S/O DEVASSY KUTTY, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, POTTA DESOM & VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. RIYAS, KAMBIDI VEETTIL, POTTA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. V.A. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O APPUKUTTAN, VADAKKEVEETTIL HOUSE, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, P.O. VELLIKULANGARA, MUKUNDPURAM TALUK. 2. P.A. KUTTAPPAN, PALLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. ELINJIPRA, KODASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. NITHA SINDHIL, PALLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. ELINJIPRA, KODASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4993 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of September,2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 323, 506(ii) and 427 read with section 149 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution, petitioners along with other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the Luciya Bar and criminally intimidated defacto-complainant and deceased Senthil by showing sword and also assaulted them and caused damage to motor bike of defacto-complainant. Petitioners are accused 4 and 6 (they are wrongly referred to in the application as accused 3 and 5). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are totally innocent of the allegations made and they have not committed any overt act. Defacto-complainant sworn to an affidavit and it is produced as Annexure-C, wherein it is mentioned that petitioners had not committed any overt act against him, his property or deceased and he has no grievance against petitioners being granted anticipatory bail. Legal heirs of the deceased also filed affidavits, which are produced as BA /08 -2- Annexures-D and E wherein it is stated that deceased Senthil before his demise informed that he had no grievance against petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that recovery is already effected and hence, they may not be required for the purpose of recovery. In the above circumstances, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, on instructions, it is understood that parties have come to a settlement. Learned Public Prosecutor also conceded that petitioners will not be required for the purpose of recovery. But they may be directed to make themselves make available for interrogation. 5. After hearing both sides, I pass the following order:- Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and in the event of their arrest, if any, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the BA /08 -3- following conditions:- i) Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. Iii) Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail and in case of breach of this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. The application is allowed as above. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.