IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7618 of 2009 CRIME NO.280 OF 2009 OF KADIRUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED: -------------------- SHINOB, S/O. HYMAVATHI, HYMA NIVAS,PALARI, P.O., NIRAMALAGIRI, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADIRUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7618 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 29.1.2010, 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.2 in Crime No.280/2009 of Kadirur Police Station, Kannur. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant is engaged in the sale of gold ornaments in jwelleries in and around Iritty. He used to collect gold from Jewellery and make and supply the ornaments to the jewellery shops. On 17/10/2009, he had taken 108 gms of gold from Atlas Jewellery, Iritty. The movements of the de facto complainant were noticed by accused No.6. The de facto complainant boarded the bus plying from Iritty to Thalassery. Accused No. 6 also boarded the bus from B.A. NO. 7618 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Iritty. Accused No.6 informed the details regarding the movement of the de facto complainant to accused No.5. Except accused No.6, all others came to Koothuparamba in a Tata Sumo car, owned and driven by the second accused. From Kottuparamba, accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7 to 9 boarded the bus. They deliberately created a scene in the bus, alleging that the de facto complainant misbehaved towards a lady passenger. Accused Nos. 1,3, 4 and 6 to 9 manhandled the de facto complainant. They snatched away the bag from the possession of the de facto complainant under the impression that gold was kept inside the bag. From Koothuparamba onwards, accused Nos. 5 and 10 were following the bus in the Tata Sumo Car driven by the second accused. At Kadirur, the accused persons got down from the bus and thereafter, they travelled in the Tata Sumo car. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other offence. He had purchased the Tata Sumo Car on hire purchase and he is working hard to maintain his family. He was not aware of the criminal activities of the other accused. The accused persons hired the vehicle and the petitioner (accused No.2) followed their instructions. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is prepared B.A. NO. 7618 OF 2009 :: 3 :: to disclose all the relevant facts before the investigating officer and if necessary, before court. It is submitted that if the petitioner is arrested and detained, he would be put to great prejudice and that he would be branded as a criminal in a very serious offence of this nature. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused persons, except accused No.2, are habitual offenders. It is also submitted that there is no instruction regarding any involvement of accused No.2 in any other offence. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 3rd and 4th February, 2010. Post on 10/02/2010. 7. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until B.A. NO. 7618 OF 2009 :: 4 :: further orders in connection with Crime No. 280 of 2009 of Kadirur Police Station, Kannur. 8. It is made clear that this order is being passed to facilitate the petitioner to disclose the true facts to the investigating officer. The question whether the petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail will be decided on 10/02/2010 or on any date to which the case is adjourned. The petitioner shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer. ” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 29.1.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 29.1.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner, 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 petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with B.A. NO. 7618 OF 2009 :: 5 :: 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 every Monday for a period of two months and thereafter, 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 ahz/