IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2179 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.28/08 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- NISHAD.P.K., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, PANDAVATH PARAMBU, KARAKKATTUKUNNU, MAIKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No.2179 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 10th accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.307 of the IPC. The crux of the allegations is that on account of prior animosity which the accused had towards the injured, the injured - an autorikshaw driver, was engaged by accused 8 and 9 to go on a trip in his autorikshaw. A8 and A9 led the de facto complainant to an isolated and lonely place to facilitate attack by accused 1 to 7. Accused 1 to 7 were waiting at that place armed with dangerous weapons to attack the de facto complainant. They attacked the de facto complainant. He suffered serious injuries. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the scene B.A. No.2179 of 2008 -: 2 :- of the crime. What then is his alleged involvement? 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is a statement of the 6th accused that accused 8 and 9 did not know the de facto complainant and the de facto complainant was identified to A8 and A9 by the petitioner. This was to facilitate identification of the de facto complainant by accused 8 and 9 so that they could engage him to go to the predetermined venue of the crime. Except this, there is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner. The petitioner is not now alleged to have any animosity against the victim. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the entire allegations were accepted as gospel truth, the involvement of the petitioner is minimal and it can by no stretch of imagination be contended that in identifying the de facto complainant to accused 8 and 9 he has any vicarious liability of the consequences that followed. At any rate, the petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He shall co-operate with the Investigator and abide by all conditions to be imposed by the court. The petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 4. I have already considered the relevant facts. An anticipatory bail application of accused 3 to 7 was considered as B.A. No.2179 of 2008 -: 3 :- per the order dated 30/1/08 in B.A.No.465/08. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 17/4/08. He shall be released on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 18/4/08 and 19/4/08. During this period the Investigator shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of one month. Subsequently, he shall so make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. B.A. No.2179 of 2008 -: 4 :- (iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all. (iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 17/4/08 as directed in clause (i) above, he shall be released on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 17/4/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge