IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9695 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1074/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 --------------------------------- ISMAIL.C., S/O.IBRAHIM M.P., AGED 23 YEARS, CHERANGADATHU HOUSE, NEAR KALLURAVI JAMAYATH MOSQUE, KALLURAVI, KANHANGAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.9695 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.6 in Crime No.1074 of 2011 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 283, 332 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 11.10.2011 at 7.00 P.M., the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and committed rioting, set fire to tyres and caused obstruction in the public road. When the police party reached the place, the accused pelted stones against them and beat the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. The BA 9695/11 2 accused had also beaten the other police personnel with iron rods. Moreover, the accused set ablaze the police jeep after puring some inflammable liquid. A loss of ` 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) was caused to the Government by setting ablaze the police jeep. The petitioner was arrested on 19.10.2011 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. Bail Application No.9272 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the order dated 16th November, 2011. 5. In Hemanth Kumar vs. Sub Inspector of Police (2011(4) KLT 288), it was held that in a case involving offence under the PDPP Act, the value of the article destroyed or even more should be directed to be deposited by the accused as a condition for granting bail. In the present case there are 17 accused. The loss assessed is ` 1,50,000/-. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be directed to deposit a sum of ` 15,000/- as a condition for granting bail. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the BA 9695/11 3 case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for ` 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of ` 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg. The petitioner shall be released on bail only on such deposit. If the petitioner is acquitted finding that he is not guilty, he would be entitled to get refund of the amount. Otherwise, the amount would be at the disposal of the court trying the case; B) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg. If the petitioner does not have a passport, an affidavit sworn to by him to that effect shall be filed before the learned Magistrate; BA 9695/11 4 C) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays and Thursdays for a period of one month and thereafter on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; D) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; E) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; F) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; G) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl