IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2971 of 2009 CRIME NO.379 OF 2009 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.SURESH KUMAR,S/O.KOCHU KRISHNAN, "PUNARTHAM",PALLIMUKKU,KADAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STAION,KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 2971 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th June, 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 the accused in Crime No.379 of 2009 of Kadakkal Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 353 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 18.5.2009 at 9 AM, when the de facto complainant, who was a staff of the Panchayat, went to the house of the accused for numbering the house, the petitioner pushed her and snatched the number plates. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a chauffeur in the Department of Tourism and he was on duty round the clock from 11.5.2009 to 18.5.2009 with the election observers in connection with the election duty. It is contended that the petitioner was on duty as a supporting staff. The counsel relied on Annexure II duty certificate and also Annexure I proceedings of the District Collector to show that the petitioner was on duty as a supporting staff to the B.A. NO. 2971 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Observers of the election. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the case is a foisted one due to the enmity between the petitioner and the husband of the de facto complainant. 5. It is not necessary to arrive at any conclusion on the basis of these rival contentions, as any finding or observation in the order disposing of the bail application may cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the accused. 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.25,000/- 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 every alternate Sundays, 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. 2971 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 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/