IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1589 of 2010 CRIME NO.111 OF 2010 OF KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION. PTEITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------ NAINAR M.M.,S/O.MUHAMMED. AGED 40 YEARS, NETTUKUDI HOUSE, PERINGALA, KUMARAPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, REP.THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1589 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 26.3.2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.111 of 2010 of Kunnathunadu Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant and the petitioner are neighbours and that they have settled the disputes and differences between them. It is also submitted that the matter will be reported to the investigating officer. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 29th March, 2010. B.A. NO. 1589 OF 2010 :: 2 :: The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will ensure that the de facto complainant also appears before the investigating officer on that day. 5. Post on 31.3.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested till then in connection with Crime No.111 of 2010 of Kunnathunadu Police Station.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 26.3.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 26.3.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner, 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 on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. NO. 1589 OF 2010 :: 3 :: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate 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; e) 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/