IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6702 of 2011() ----------------------------- Crime No.374 of 2011 of Shornur Police Station, Palakkad District. PETITIONERS/A1 AND A2 : ------------------------ 1. SUJITH E., S/O. RAMANKUTTY, AGED 37 YRS, ERAKUNNATH HOUSE, PALAT ROAD, OTTAPALAM-679 101. 2. RAMANKUTTY, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.CHOZHI (LATE), -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHORNUR POLICE STATION, SHORNUR-679 121, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6702 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 05th day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.374 of 2011 of Shornur Police Station, Palakkad District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 26/08/2011, the following order was passed: 3. The accused persons are the brother and father of the de facto complainant. It is submitted that there arose some dispute between the parties with respect to running of a financial concern. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offences, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the first petitioner (first accused) should be directed to Bail Appln.No.6702/2011 : 2 : appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first petitioner (first accused) to appear before the investigating officer on 31/08/2011 and 01/09/2011. 6. Post on 05/09/2011. 7. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.374 of 2011 of Shornur Police Station, till 07/09/2011. 8. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 26/08/2011 has been complied with by the petitioners. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 26/08/2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Bail Appln.No.6702/2011 : 3 : thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. c) The petitioners 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 skj