IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 976 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 61/2010 OF SREEKANTAPURAM POLICE STATION ........... PETITIOINERS/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- 1. MOOPPANTAKATH BASHEER @ KOOLI BASHEER , S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 23 YEAERS,COOLIE, RESIDING AT SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SEERAKATH SABOOR, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, RESIDING AT SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. KUTTOOKKANAM AZAD,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA,COOLIE, RESIDING AT AT SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. AKKARAMAL MUNEER,AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN HAJI, RESIDING AT AT SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. SEERAKATH ABDULLA, AGED 65 YEARS,S/O.MAMMAD, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT/STATE: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO.61 OF 2010 OF SREEKANTAPURAM POLICE STATION). BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 976 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 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. 2, 3, 4, 15 and 16 in Crime No. 61/2010 of Sreekantapuram Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 17.03.2010, 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, 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 23rd and 24th March, 2010. Post on 30.03.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime B.A. No. 976 / 2010 2 No.61/2010 of Sreekantapuram Police Station, Kannur District. The petitioners shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer. Hand over copy to both sides.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners 1, 2 and 5, who are respectively accused Nos.2, 3 and 16 had complied with the order dated 17.03.2010. However, it is submitted that petitioners 3 and 4, who are accused Nos, 4 and 15 did not comply with the order. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioners 3 and 4 (accused Nos. 4 and 15) did not comply with the direction contained in the order dated 17.03.2010, I am of the view that they are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, as petitioners 1, 2 and 5 (accused Nos. 2, 3 and 16) had complied with the order dated 17.03.2010, I am of the view that they are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 1, 2 and 5 (accused Nos. 2, 3 and 16), the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on B.A. No. 976 / 2010 3 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, 2 and 5 (accused Nos. 2, 3 and 16) 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, 2 and 5(accused Nos. 2, 3 and 16) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) Petitioners 1, 2 and 5 (accused Nos. 2, 3 and 16) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) Petitioners 1, 2 and 5(accused Nos. 2, 3 and 16) 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 dismissed in so far it relates to petitioners 3 and 4 (accused Nos. 4 and 15) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 1, 2 and 5 (accused Nos. 2, 3 and 16). K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln