IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5951 of 2011() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.301 OF 2011 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DT) PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. SAIFUDHIN K.V AGED 22YEARS, S/O.ABDUL SALEEM, THADATHIL HOUSE, NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT 2. UBAILDULLA @ UBAIDU AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.T.P.ABDUL RAHIM, NARATH ,KANNUR DISTRICT 3. NAVAZ,C.K. AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.K.MAJEED CHERIYAKUNHIKANDY HOUSE, KANNUR DISTRICT 4. IMTHIYAZ P.O.,S/O.MAJEED, FAZIYA MANZIL AGED 24 YEARS, NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY P.P.SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5951 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.301 of 2011 of Mayyil Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 341 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 27th July, 2011, the following order was passed: “3. The de facto complainant sustained fracture of nasal bone. The allegation is that accused No.1 attacked the de facto complainant with an iron object. The overt act alleged against accused Nos.2 to 4 have not resulted in serious injuries on the de facto complainant. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature B.A.No.5951 of 2011 2 of the allegations levelled against accused No.1, I do not think anticipatory bail can be granted in his favour. If anticipatory bail is granted to accused No.1, it would affect the proper investigation of the case. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offences, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, second, third and fourth petitioners (A2 to A4) should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to second, third and fourth petitioners (A2 to A4) to appear before the investigating officer on 02/08/2011 and 03/08/2011. 6. Post on 05/08/2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that second, third and fourth petitioners (A2 to A4) will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.301 of 2011 of Mayyil Police Station, Kannur District, till 09/08/2011. The second, third and fourth petitioners (A2 to A4) shall produce a 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 the direction in the order dated 27th July, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact B.A.No.5951 of 2011 3 that the direction in the order dated 27th July, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M on every Monday, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. d) The petitioners 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. B.A.No.5951 of 2011 4 The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms