IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5167 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1097/2011 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- KRISHNA PRASAD, AGED 37, S/O. KARTHIKEYAN, KOCHAN HOUSE, BLANGAD, CHAVAKAD, 'NOW RESIDING AT PUTTUSWAMI BUILDING, ROOM NO.118, BODAKALHANDRA,KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-62. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.5167 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2011 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 first accused in Crime No.1097 of 2011 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant is the father-in-law of the first accused. The allegation is that the petitioner went to the house of the de facto complainant and tried to take away his child, aged 5 years. When the de facto complainant interfered, the first accused wielded an 'urumi'. It is also alleged that three other identifiable persons were there along with the first accused. BA 5167/2011 2 4. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 5.7.2011, the following order was passed : “4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before considering the prayer for anticipatory bail, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to appear before the investigating officer. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on 12th and 13th of July, 2011 between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. Post on 18th July, 2011. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that till then, the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with the crime.” 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 5.7.2011 has been complied with by the petitioner. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 5.7.2011 has been complied BA 5167/2011 3 with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for ` 10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions : A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required . B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence . C) The petitioner 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. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl