IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5162 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- Cr. NO.795/2009 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- RAJEEVKUMAR, S/O.BALAN, AGED 29 YEARS, THACHANADAN HOUSE, THURUTHIPARAMBU, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5162 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Cr.No.795/2009 of Chalakudy Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 323, 341 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 8/10/2009, the following order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, 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 15th and 16th October, 2009. B.A. No. 5162 /2009 2 Post on 22/10/2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Cr. No. 795 of 2009 of Chalakudy Police Station, Thrissur.” 4. Later on 29/10/2009, another order was passed, which reads as follows: “ Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that due to lack of communication, the investigating officer could not be informed about the dates fixed for appearance of the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner may be directed to appear on another date before the investigating officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner agreed to this suggestion. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9A.M. on 4th November, 2009. Post on 9/11/2009.” B.A. No. 5162 /2009 3 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has complied with the directions contained in the order dated 29/10/2009. 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 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 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. B.A. No. 5162 /2009 4 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