IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1427 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.970/2009 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 9 ------------------------------------------------- 1. KUTTU @ MANOJ, 20 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, VILAYILVILAKETHU MELEPUTHEN VEEDU, RAMAPURAM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE. 2. KOCHUKUTTAN @ VINOJ, 18 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, DO. DO. 3. RATHEESH, 20 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, KANNAMKARA MELE PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, ATHIYANNOOR DESAM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE. 4. RAJEEV, 23 YEARS, S/O.MOHAN, -DO- -DO- 5. RAJESH, 24 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, -DO- -DO- 6. KANNAN @ SHAIJU, 25 YEARS, S/O.MURALI, -DO- -DO- 7. KOCHUMON @ VIVIN, 25 YEARS, S/O.RAMANI, KALLINGAVILLA V.R.HOUSE, RAMAPURAM, -DO- -DO- 8. ANEESH, 20 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, ANEESH BHAVAN, KUNCHUVEETTUVILA, ATHIYANNOOR DESAM -DO- -DO- 9. BAIJU, 25 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, AYANIYARATHALA THAZE PUTHEN VEEDU, ATHIYANNOOR DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.D.ROBINSON RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, S.I. OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ B.A.No.1427 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th 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.1 to 9 in Crime No.970 of 2009 of Neyyattinkara Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 379 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 19.3.2010, 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 24th and 25th March, 2010. Post on 31.3.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public BA No.1427/2010 2 Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.970 of 2009 of Neyyattinkara Police Station. The petitioners shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that petitioners 1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 2) did not comply with the directions contained in the order dated 19.3.2010. It is also submitted that the other petitioners, namely, petitioners 3 to 9, who are accused Nos.3 to 9, had complied with the directions. 5. Since petitioners 1 and 2 did not comply with the direction in the order dated 19th March 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, petitioners 3 to 9 having complied with the directions, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to them. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 3 to 9 (accused Nos.3 to 9), the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing BA No.1427/2010 3 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 3 to 9 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 3 to 9 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) Petitioners 3 to 9 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) Petitioners 3 to 9 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 as it relates to petitioners 1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 2) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 3 to 9 (accused Nos.3 to 9). K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl