IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5060 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.549/2009 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ SHAJI, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.GOPALAN, KOIPPURATHU, AYITHOTTUVA MURI WEST KALLADA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5060 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 5/11/2009, the following order was passed: “This is an application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No. 549/2009 of Sasthamcotta Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 3(1) of the P.D.P.P. Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 22.08.2009, the police party came to the place of occurrence in a police jeep for patrolling. The jeep was parked in front of the brick factory belonging to the petitioner. After the police party returned to the place at about 7.25 P.M., they found the petitioner and two others near the jeep. The police party saw that the petitioner, on seeing the police, immediately withdraw his hands from underneath the bonnet of B.A. No. 5060/2009 2 the police jeep. On seeing the police, the three persons ran away. When the jeep was started, smoke came out. On inspection, it was found that damage to the electrical fittings was caused resulting in a loss of Rs. 2500/- to the Government. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor very vehementally opposed the bail application. It is submitted that no grounds are made out for the grant of Anticipatory Bail. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is foisted against him due to some misunderstanding on the part of the police. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 549/2009 of Sasthamcotta Police Station. If the petitioner were to be arrested and detained, he apprehends that he would be manhandled and humiliated by the police. 6. On a perusal of the Case Diary, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that no materials are made out against the petitioner to B.A. No. 5060/2009 3 implicate him as an accused. Prima facie, I am satisfied that there are materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is prepared to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court for the grant of Anticipatory Bail. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that before finally disposing of the bail application, the petitioner shall be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer. It is also necessary to direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,500/- before the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sasathamcotta, which is the court having jurisdiction. Accordingly the following directions are issued: 1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer at 9 A.M. on 12th and 13th of November, 2009. 2.The petitioner shall deposit a sum of B.A. No. 5060/2009 4 Rs. 2,500/- before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sasthamcotta within a period of 10 days. Post the Bail Application on 19.11.2009. There will be a direction not to arrest the petitioner in connection with Crime No. 549/2009 of Sasthamcotta Police Station until further orders. The petitioner shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has appeared before the investigation officer as directed in the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced a receipt for perusal showing that a sum of Rs.2,500/- was deposited before the court as directed in the order dated 5/11/2009. 3. 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 petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the B.A. No. 5060/2009 5 petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioner 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 scm