IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2766 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.481/2009 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------------------- 1. SAKKEER, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.URAN PILLAI, BANGLAVE PARAMBIL, PATTERIPURAM, ALUVA. 2. SHANAVAS P.A., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.ALIKUNJU, PULIKKAPARAMBU, ELOORKARA, MUPPATHADAM. 3. ABDUL RAZZAK K.A., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED, ODOPPILLIMALIL, KUNJUNNIKARA, PULIYANNOOR P.O., ALUVA. 4. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.MUHARI, CHENDAMPILLY, KUTTIKKATTUKARA, ELOOR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: ------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.481 OF 2009 OF N.PARAVUR POLICE STATION). SRI. M.S BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2766 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 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.7,4, 5 and 6 in Crime No.481/2009 of North Paravur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 363, 506(1) and 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that originally the offences alleged against the accused persons were under Sections 363 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the father of the defacto complainant was forcibly taken by the accused persons to the Sub Registrar Office for the purpose of registering the document assigning the property belonging to the father of the defacto complainant. Later Section 394 was also included on the allegation that mobile phone belonging to the defacto complainant's father was taken away by the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the first accused B.A. No. 2766/ 2009 2 filed a suit for return of the amount paid by him as advance in the transaction. The suit is pending. It is also stated that the father of the defacto complainant has stated that there were business transactions between the defacto complainant and the first accused. 3. 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 the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail for a period of one month on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioners shall not try to influence the B.A. No. 2766/ 2009 3 prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) On the expiry of the period mentioned above, the petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail. F) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm