IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1531 of 2010 CRIME NO.96 OF 2010 OF CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2, 3,1,6 & 4: -------------------------------------- 1. ABU THALIF, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, THOTTIVALAPPIL HOUSE, PAYNKULAM, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. JAYESH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, KIZHAKKECHOLAYIL HOUSE, PAYNKULAM, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. VINOD, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAYNKULAM, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 4. NOWFAL, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.RASHEED, KARUKANCHERY HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHI, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 5. ANUROOP, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, KOTHAKURUSSI HOUSE, PAYNKULAM, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1531 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are respectively accused Nos.2, 3, 1, 6 and 4 in Crime No.96 of 2010 of Cheruthuruthy Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 19.2.2010 at 8.30 PM, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant, who sustained grievous hurt. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. It is stated by the learned Public Prosecutor to a query by the Court that the grievous hurt sustained by the de facto B.A. NO. 1531 OF 2010 :: 2 :: complainant is attributable to the hit with a hitting block made by the first accused. The allegations against the other accused are that accused No.2 used a stick for attacking the de facto complainant and the other accused persons had beaten the de facto complainant with hands. It is thus seen that the grievous hurt sustained by the de facto complainant is not attributable to any of the overt acts committed by accused Nos.2, 3, 6 and 4. On the other hand, the overt act made by accused No.1 had resulted in the grievous hurt sustained by the de facto complainant. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to accused No.1. He is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of accused No.1 may be required in the case. 7. However, the case in respect of the other accused stands on a different footing. I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 (respectively accused Nos.2, 3, 6 and 4). B.A. NO. 1531 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 8. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 (respectively accused Nos.2, 3, 6 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 1, 2, 4 and 5 (respectively accused Nos.2, 3, 6 and 4) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) Petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 (respectively accused Nos.2, 3, 6 and 4) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) Petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 (respectively accused Nos.2, 3, 6 and 4) 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 in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 (respectively accused Nos.2, 3, 6 and 4) and it is dismissed in so far as it relates to the third petitioner (accused No.1). (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/