IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3125 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.252/2009 OF CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATIONS PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- SASISWARAN, S/O.ARJUNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREE KRISHNA, THIRUVAMPADY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON RESPONDENT: --------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3125 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.252/2009 of Changanacherry Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that at 4 A.M. on 22/04/2009, the defacto complainant, while passing through the western side of the temple, was attacked by his elder brother krishnankutty and his children Shaji and Vinu as well as his son-in-law. The allegation is that Shaji attacked him with an iron rod. Vinu was having a pen knife with him. The overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he beat the defacto complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as Regional Officer in Kerala Coir B.A. No. 3125 /2009 Page numbers Workers Welfare Fund Board at Kozhikode and on 22/04/2009, he was on duty. A certificate is seen issued by the Chief Executive-in-charge of the Kerala Coir Workers Welfare Fund Board, Alappuzha on 17/06/2009, the original of which was shown to me for perusal and a photocopy of which is taken on record, wherein, it is mentioned that the petitioner herein was on duty in the office from 20/04/2009 to 24/04/2009. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that B.A. No.2432/2009 was filed by Accused Nos.1 to 4 including the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail and that application was dismissed by the order dated 21/05/2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not brought to the notice of the court that the petitioner was on duty in the office on the date of incident. The counsel also submitted that the overt act alleged against the petitioner was not brought to the notice of the court at the time of disposal of B.A. No.2432/2009. That the investigation has also progressed, is the another circumstance and subsequent event brought to the notice of the court by the learned counsel B.A. No. 3125 /2009 Page numbers for the petitioner. It is submitted that due to the change of circumstances and brining to the notice of the court certain facts which were not noticed earlier would make the situation different, which according to the petitioner, would enable him to seek for anticipatory bail in spite of the dismissal of the earlier application. I am of the view that in view of the change of circumstances, this Bail Application can be considered on the merits . 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B.A. No. 3125 /2009 Page numbers B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) 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 ahz