IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5525 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.372/09 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION, ALUVA PETITIONERS: ACCUSED -------------------------------- 1. SUBHASH, KARIYILKIZHAKKATHIL, KUTTEMPEROOR P.O., MANNAR. 2. SREEKANTH, KARIYILKALATHIL KUTTEMPEROOR P.O., MANNAR. 3. SHANAVAS, S/O.SHAMSUDEEN, THARAYIL THEKKETHIL, KURATTISSERI VILLAGE, PAVUKKARA P.O., MANNAR. 4. GIRISH, KARIYILKALATHIL, KUTTEMPEROOR P.O., MANNAR. BY ADV. SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP.BY S.I.OF POLICE, MANNAR POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5525 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009 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.372 of 2009 of Mannar Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 324, 452 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 1st October, 2009, the following order was passed: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The first petitioner is undergoing trial in more than 20 criminal cases. The allegation in the present case is that the petitioners chopped the leg of the husband of the defacto complainant. According to the prosecution, the petitioners committed the offences under Sections 452, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in order to take revenge upon the BA No.5525/2009 2 husband of the defacto complainant on the ground that he deposed in court against the first accused. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the criminal antecedents of the first accused (first petitioner) I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him. However, the position of accused Nos.2 to 4 is different. They are not involved in any other case. In the facts and circumstances of the case before disposing of this application for anticipatory bail, I am of the view that petitioners 2 to 4 should be permitted to appear before the investigating officer on 8th and 9th October, 2009 at 9 A.M. Post on 14.10.2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners 2 to 4 will not be arrested until further orders.” 4. Since it was made clear in the order dated 1st October 2009 that the first petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of anticipatory bail, the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in compliance with the BA No.5525/2009 3 direction contained in the order dated 1st October 2009, petitioners 2 and 4 (Sreekanth and Girish) appeared before the investigating officer. However, the third petitioner (Shanavas) did not comply with the direction to appear before the investigating officer. Therefore, he is not entitled to get any discretionary relief. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 2 and 4, who are accused Nos.2 and 4 . There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners 2 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 4 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) Petitioners 2 and 4 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) Petitioners 2 and 4 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; BA No.5525/2009 4 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 in favour of petitioners 2 and 4 and dismissed the rest. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl