IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4166 of 2009(C) ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.506/2009 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .............. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. MANIYAN, S/O. SADANANDAN NADAR, AGED 50 YEARS, MAVUVILA VADAKKARIKU VEEDU, VENNIYOOR, NELLIVILA P.O. 2. MANU, (SHOWN AS MANIKANDAN IN THE FIS), S/O. MANIYAN, MAVUVILA VADAKKARIKU VEEDU, VENNIYOOR, NELLIVILA P.O. 3. SANTHOSH, S/O. THANKAPPAN NADIR, AGED 32 YEARS, KAKKAKUZHY, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, VENNIYOOR, NELLIVILA P.O. BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV. RESPONDENT/STATE: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.506 OF 2009 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4166 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 O R D E R The petitioners herein state that they are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.506 of 2009 of Vizhinjam Police Station. The Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 3rd petitioner is not an accused in the case and petitioners 1 and 2 are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the case. In view of the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor, no relief is necessary in so far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned . 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 11/02/2010, the following order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, B.A. No. 4166/2009 2 an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 18th and 19th February, 2010. Post on 24/02/2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No. 506 of 2009 of Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioners shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners have complied with the direction contained in the order dated 11/02/2010. 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 petitioners 1 and 2. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 1 and 2, the officer in charge of the police station B.A. No. 4166/2009 3 shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/-each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) Petitioners 1 and 2 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) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) Petitioners 1 and 2 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, in so far as it relates to petitioners 1 and 2 (accused Nos. 1 and 2) and it is dismissed as unnecessary in so far as it relates to petitioner No.3 (accused No.3). K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm