IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6544 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.745/2009 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION APPLICANTS/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE, S/O. MATHAI, AKKASSERY HOUSE, NETHAJI ROAD, MAROTTICHAL P.O., THRISSUR. 2. CHANDRAN,S/O. DAMODARAN, THANGEL HOUSE, NETHAJI ROAD, MAROTTICHAL P.O., THRISSUR. 3. K.U.THANKACHAN, S/O.ULAHANNA, KARIMPLAYICKAL HOUSE, NETHAJI ROAD, MAROTTICHAL P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------- --- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLCIE, OLLUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6544 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.745 of 2009 of Ollur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 20.10.2009, at about 8 A.M., the de facto complainant was attacked by the accused persons and the first accused hit him with a stone which resulted in the fracture of the fifth and sixth ribs of the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the de facto complainant questioned the contractor who had undertaken the road work and complained that the quality of the work was not up to the standard. The accused persons, who were engaged in the contract work, infuriated by this attitude of the de facto complainant, attacked the de facto complainant and committed the offences. BA No.6544/2009 2 4. The offences alleged against the petitioners are grave in nature. The fracture sustained by the de facto complainant is attributable to the overt acts of the first accused. However, it is seen that the overt acts alleged against accused Nos.2 and 3 are not attributable to any of the grievous hurt caused to the de facto complainant. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of accused No.1. I am of the view that if anticipatory bail is granted to accused No.1, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Moreover, the de facto complainant had sustained very serious injuries and the allegation is that the overt acts done by the first accused caused serious injuries on the de facto complainant. However, the case of accused Nos.2 and 3 stands on a different footing. The grievous hurt caused to the de facto complainant is not attributable to any of the overt acts done by accused Nos.2 and 3. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.2 and 3). BA No.6544/2009 3 There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 2 and 3, 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 2 and 3 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) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) Petitioners 2 and 3 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 dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner (first accused- Varghese) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.2 and 3). K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl