IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5379 of 2009() --------------------------------------------- CRMP.2887/2009 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO.495/2009 OF SASTHAMCOTTAH POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- RENJU, S/O.RAVEENDRANATH, AGED 40, GANAPATHY VILASAM, THURYOOR SOUTH P.O., KADAMBANAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.495 OF 2009 OF SASTHAMCOTTAH POLICE STATION). SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5379 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of September, 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.495/2009 of Sasthamcottah Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the Case Diary. 4. On a perusal of the Case Diary, the following facts are revealed: One Balakrishnan was engaged in widening a pathway. Ratheesh who was called by Balakrishnan, was also engaged in the work. The northern property owner is one George. The southern boundary of the George's property is bounded by barbed wire fence. George had directed not to put concrete touching the fencing. While the work was going on, the son in law of George, the petitioner and another came to the place B.A. No. 5379/2009 2 to see whether the directions given by George were being complied with. At that time, one Mohanan Pillai and two others came in an Autorickshaw. Mohanan Pillai was drunk. He questioned the work being done on a Sunday. There was a quarrel between Mohanan Pillai and others. Sasidharan, the deceased was in his house. Hearing the quarrel, Sasidharan came out and intervened. The allegation is that at that time the petitioner pushed down Sasidharan and he sustained injuries. He was taken to the hospital. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sasidharan stated that he had no complaint against anybody. Later, he was treated in another hospital. On 5/8/2009, Sasidharan died. It is submitted that the ingredients of Section 304 are not made out in the case. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. 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 B.A. No. 5379/2009 3 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 all 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. 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