IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3396 of 2009 CRIME NO.301 OF 2009 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- GISHIL, S/O.SUBRAMANYAN, PAYOOPATIL HOUSE, ADAT VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3396 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th June, 2009 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 accused in Crime No.301 of 2009 of Peramangalam Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 341 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is as follows: The de facto complainant is an autorickshaw driver. He took two persons in his autorickshaw. When it reached near a Bar hotel, a scuffle was going on there. Persons who hired the vehicle earlier, approached the petitioner after some time and requested to take them in the autorickshaw. While travelling in the autorickshaw,they saw Gishil (petitioner). The persons travelling in the autorickshaw asked the de facto complainant to stop the vehicle. There was a scuffle between the persons travelling in the vehicle and Gishil. At that time, the de facto complainant intervened. Gishil did not like the same and he B.A. NO. 3396 OF 2009 :: 2 :: attacked the de facto complainant with a jack lever and he sustained injuries including fracture to his tibia. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the story put forward by the prosecution is not a true version of the incident. According to the petitioner, he intervened in the scuffle between the de facto complainant and Satheesh and that the petitioner is not at all involved in any offence. The petitioner relied on the wound certificate. The wound certificate would disclose that the de facto complainant was admitted in the hospital on 26.5.2009, the date of incident, at 10.30 PM. The de facto complainant stated to the doctor that the injuries were sustained due to assault by Satheesh. It is also stated in the wound certificate as follows: “assailant – Satheesh”. According to the petitioner, the wound certificate would falsify the case put forward by the de facto complainant in the First Information Statement. 5. It is not necessary to decide which story is true. That is a matter to be decided at the time of trial. Any observation or finding while disposing of this Bail Application would cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the accused. At the same time, the different B.A. NO. 3396 OF 2009 :: 3 :: statements made by the de facto complainant, one before the Medical Officer and the other on the next day before the police officer, show that the apprehension of the petitioner expressed in the Bail Application is justified. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail for a period of one month on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; B.A. NO. 3396 OF 2009 :: 4 :: e) On the expiry of the period mentioned above or even before that period, the petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail; f) 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 ahz/