IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2029 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.112/08 OF SOORANAD POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED ------------------------ 1. THANKACHAN, S/O.GEORGE, PULIVILA VEETTIL PADINJATTUKIZHAKKUMURI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. GEORGE, PULIVILA VEETTIL PADINJATTUKIZHAKKUMURI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.SABU SREEDHRAN. RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2029 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2. Both accused persons are named in the F.I.R. The crux of the allegations is that the defacto complainant was attacked at his house by the petitioners causing grievous injury to him after trespassing into his house. The defacto complainant and his wife had allegedly suffered injuries. The petitioners are son and father. The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered of offences punishable under Sections 452 & 326 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that the State has no objection against grant of anticipatory bail to the 2nd accused. He, going by the allegations now, had only come to the scene of the crime after commencement of the incident and after the 1st accused allegedly inflicted the serious injury. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the 2nd accused can be granted anticipatory bail. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. B.A.No.2029 of 2008 2 3. But so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. It is true that a counter case has also been registered. But it is submitted that serious injury and fracture of the radius has been suffered by the victim. The incident had taken place in the house of the defacto complainant and the allegation in the counter case that the defacto complainant had attacked the petitioner does not stand to reason and logic. In any case, available materials indicate the complicity of the 1st accused. He is not entitled for anticipatory bail. He may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor against the prayer of the 1st accused for grant of anticipatory bail. The fact that the injury was inflicted with a torch does not by itself generate any serious doubt in my mind about the complicity of the defacto complainant. The argument of the counsel that at that time of the day, the 1st petitioner, who allegedly went to the house of the defacto complainant cannot reasonably be expected to possess the torch and the torch must, in all probabilities have B.A.No.2029 of 2008 3 been brought the same by the defacto complainant from his house does not appeal to me as a sufficient reason to tilt the scale in favour of the 1st petitioner now. 5. In the result, this Bail Application is, allowed in part. a) The prayer of the 1st petitioner for anticipatory bail is dismissed, but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. b) The following directions are issued in favour of the 2nd accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C. i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 21.04.2008. He shall be enlarged on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) 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 3 p.m on 22.04.2008 and 23.04.2008. During this period, the B.A.No.2029 of 2008 4 Investigating Officer 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 make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of two months and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so; 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 those directions were not issued at all; iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 21.04.08 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 21.04.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- B.A.No.2029 of 2008 5