IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1355 of 2010 CRIME NO.42 OF 2010 OF KANJURAPPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 -------------------------------------------- 1. HANEEFA, S/O.MEERA RAUTHUR, EDAMANA, MADATHANIYIL HOUSE, MANAGALLOR BHAGOM, KORATTY KARA, KOOVAPALLY VILLAGE,KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. MAHIN, S/O. MEERA RAUTHUR, EDAMANA, MADATHANIYIL HOUSE, MANGALLOR BHAGOM, KORATTY KARA, KOOVAPALLY VILLAGE,KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1355 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 O R D E R 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.42 of 2010 of Kanjirappally Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b), 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 23.1.2010, because of previous enmity, accused No.1 attacked the de facto complainant with an iron rod. The de facto complainant is a lady aged 70 years. She sustained fracture to her left leg on account of the attack made by accused No.1. It is stated that there are civil disputes between the parties and the attack was made on account of the previous enmity. B.A. NO. 1355 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. However, the case of the second accused stands on a different footing. The overt acts allegedly done by accused No.2 are not attributable to the grievous hurt sustained by the de facto complainant. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner (first accused). The victim is aged 70 years. She has sustained fracture to her left leg. The allegation is that accused No.1 used iron rod to attack a lady aged 70 years. To my mind, the first petitioner (first accused) is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the first petitioner (first accused) may be required in the case. 6. At the same time, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the second petitioner (second accused). There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the second petitioner (second accused), 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. 1355 OF 2010 :: 3 :: a) The second petitioner (second accused) 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 second petitioner (second accused) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The second petitioner (second accused) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The second petitioner (second accused) 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) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to the second petitioner (second accused). (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/