IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5373 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.369/2009 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1,3,4: ------------------------------------------------- 1. DANIAL S/O. MARTIN, KANAYAMKADAVU, PALLIPURAYIDAM, KAVANADU, KOLLAM. 2. PHILOMINA, AJITH NIVAS, KANAYAMKADAVU, PALLYPURAYIDAM, KAVANADU.P.O., KOLLAM. 3. RANI, W/O. JOSE, KANAYAMKADAVU, PALLIPURAYIDAM, KAVANADU.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA, POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5373 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 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.1, 3 and 4 in Crime No.369/2009 of Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 2/9/2009 at 8.30 P.M., the first accused attacked the de facto complainant with sword and caused incised wounds on him. The allegation is that accused Nos. 3 and 4 restrained the de facto complainant and also beat him with hand. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the first B.A. No. 5373 /2009 2 accused (first petitioner). However, serious injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are not attributable to any overt act committed by accused Nos.3 and 4. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are women. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.3 and 4) can be granted anticipatory bail. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.3 and 4), the officer in charge of the police station 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 2 and 3 (accused Nos.3 and 4) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) Petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.3 and 4) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) Petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.3 and 4) 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. B.A. No. 5373 /2009 3 Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed, in so far as it relates to the first petitioner (first accused) and it is allowed, in the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to Petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.3 and 4). K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm