IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5910 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.374/2009 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. ANISH, VILAYIL VEEDU, PARAKKARA MURI, PANDALAM THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK 2. SUNIL, PULIMKAVIL HOUSE, PARAKKARA MURI, PANDALAM, THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5910 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.374 of 2009 of Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b), 341, 456 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence alleged by the de facto complainant is 19.8.2009 at 11.30 P.M. The scene of occurrence is stated to be the residence of the de facto complainant. The FIR was lodged on 30.8.2009 by Sreelatha, the de facto complainant. 4. It is stated by the petitioners that the de facto complainant had filed Annexure C complaint before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adoor against Sadanandan, Bino Karthikeyan and Anish (Anish is the first petitioner in this Bail Application) alleging offences under BA No.5910/2009 2 Sections 447, 354, 427 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The date, time and place of occurrence is the same as stated by the de facto complainant in the FI statement. The learned Magistrate took the sworn statement of the de facto complainant and thereafter, directed the de facto complainant to produce the witnesses. The de facto complainant failed to produce the witnesses. As per the order dated 13th October, 2009, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Annexure C complaint was filed on 28.8.2009 and the First Information Statement was lodged on 30.8.2009. The dismissal of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant, under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is very relevant in the present case. 6. 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.10,000/- BA No.5910/2009 3 each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) 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 csl