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. 5287 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.672/2011 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 5: -------------------------------- 1. VISHNU, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.THULASEEDHARAN, ALAYIL VEEDU, THEKKAVILA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. AKHIL SURENDRAN @ KELU, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN, THUNDAZHIKATHU VEEDU, THEKKAVILA P.O., KOLLAM. 3. RAHUL, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN KADAKATHAZHIKATHU VEEDU, THEKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM. 4. JOMON, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.JOHNSON, HRIDAYA BHAVAN, PUTHENNADA NAGAR-51, THEKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST 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.5287 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.2 to 5 in Crime No.672 of 2011 of Kollam East Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 115, 341, 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 09/06/2011 at 4 P.M., accused Nos.2 to 5 attacked the de facto complainant as instigated by accused No.1. Accused No.2 hit the de facto complainant with a hitting block which resulted in the fracture of nasal bone. The allegation is that accused Nos.3 to 5 fisted the de facto complainant. 4. The allegation against accused No.2 is that, by the attack made by him with a hitting block, a fracture was sustained by the de facto complainant. The allegations levelled against accused Nos.3 to 5 are not attributable to the Bail Appln.No.5287/2011 : 2 : fracture injury sustained by the de facto complainant. In the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to first petitioner (accused No.2). The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to first petitioner (accused No.2). 5. As regards accused Nos.3 to 5, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of 2nd, 3rd and 4th petitioners (A3 to A5), 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: A) Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 (A3 to A5) shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on every Monday, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 (A3 to A5) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; Bail Appln.No.5287/2011 : 3 : C) Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 (A3 to A5) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 (A3 to A5) 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 first petitioner (accused No.2) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 2, 3 and 4 (accused Nos.3 to 5). K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj