IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4594 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO.199/2009 OF KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ---------------------------------------------- 1. MURUKESH KUMAR, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, THANPONNANKALA VADAKKARIKU BUNGALOW, KANJIRAMKULAM DESOM, KANJIRAMKULAM VILLAGE. 2. BINU, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.RAMU, KAZHUVERPERUNTHANI, KIZHAKKARIKU PUTHEN VEEDU, KANJIRAMKULAM DESOM, KANJIRAMKULAM VILLAGE. 3. TINKU, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, KADAYARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KANJIRAMKULAM DESOM, KANJIRAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.4594 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th 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 petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.199/2009 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 19/8/2009, the following order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, I was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in favour of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who are accused Nos. 1 and 2. But, taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the third accused/third petitioner Tinku is suffering from renal disease as evidenced by B.A. No.4594/2009 2 Annexure I, I thought that it would be proper to grant anticipatory bail to accused No.3. Learned Public Prosecutor sought time to verify whether Annexure I relates to the third petitioner, Tinku. Post on 25/08/2009. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that till then the third petitioner, Tinku will not be arrested.” 4. After having considered the submissions on either side, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the third petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the third petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing a 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 3rd petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The 3rd petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. B.A. No.4594/2009 3 C) The 3rd petitioner 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. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to Petitioners 1 and 2 and it is allowed, in the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to the 3rd Petitioner. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm