IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5979 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRMP.1840/2011 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO.1029/2011 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION KOLLAM DISTRICT .................... PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 1-3 -------------------------- 1. ALEXANDER @ ALEX, AGED 68 YEARS, PLAMTHUNDIL VEEDU, MULAVANA P.O., PERAYAM. 2. BIJU K.ALEX, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.ALEXANDER, PLAMTHUNDIL VEEDU, MULAVANA P.O., PERAYAM. 3. ALEYAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.ALEXANDER, PLAMTHUNDIL VEEDU, MULAVANA P.O., PERAYAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.5979 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 08th day of August, 2011 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.1029 of 2011 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 448, 324, 294(b) and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 17/06/2011. The allegation is that accused No.2 attacked the de facto complainant using a blade and caused five incise wounds on the body of the de facto complainant. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are the father and mother of the second accused. They are aged persons. The overt act alleged against accused Nos.1 and 3 are not attributable to any incised wound or any fracture. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in respect of an incident which took place on the same day Crime No.1030 of 2011 was registered by the Police in which the de facto complainant in the present case is one of Bail Appln.No.5979/2011 : 2 : the accused persons. The Counsel also submitted that the de facto complainant in Crime No.1030 of 2011 sustained cut injuries. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that no serious injuries were caused to the de facto complainant in Crime No.1030 of 2011. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the second accused is not entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to him, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail made by accused No.2 is rejected. As regards accused Nos.1 and 3, a different approach is required. The overt acts alleged against them are not attributable to any serious injuries caused to the de facto complainant. Taking into account their age and other factors, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to accused Nos.1 and 3. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners 1 and 3 (A1 and A3), the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: Bail Appln.No.5979/2011 : 3 : A) Petitioners 1 and 3 (A1 and A3) shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) Petitioners 1 and 3 (A1 and A3) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) Petitioners 1 and 3 (A1 and A3) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) Petitioners 1 and 3 (A1 and A3) 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 accused No.2 and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to accused Nos.1 and 3. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj