IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 515 of 2010 CRIME NO.2 OF 2010 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NO.2 & 8 ----------------------------------------------- 1. VISHNU.K.M., S/O.MURALI, KAITHAVALLAPIL HOUSE, WEST KOMBARA, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. DANISH.E.R. S/O. RAVI, EYYANI HOUSE, EAST KOMBARA, IRNJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 515 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 8 in Crime No.2 of 2010 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 31.12.2009, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant with deadly weapons and caused serious injuries on him. The overt act alleged against the second accused is that he hit the de facto complainant on his head with a stick causing fracture on his head. No overt act is alleged against the eighth accused (second petitioner), which is attributable to any grievous injury. B.A. NO. 515 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can not be granted in favour of the first petitioner (second accused). If anticipatory bail is granted to the first petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. More over, I am also of the view that the first petitioner (second accused) is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. However, the case of the second petitioner (eighth accused) stands on a different footing. As stated earlier, no overt act attributable to any grievous injury was alleged to have been committed by the second petitioner (eighth accused). Therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner (eighth accused). 6. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the second petitioner (eighth accused), 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: B.A. NO. 515 OF 2010 :: 3 :: a) The second petitioner (eighth accused) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The second petitioner (eighth accused) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The second petitioner (eighth accused) 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 dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner (second accused) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to the second petitioner (eighth accused). (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/