IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5654 of 2009 CRIME NO.762 OF 2009 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 2,3 & 4 --------------------------------------------------- 1. DINESH KUMAR.T,S/O.THATHWA PRAKASH, CHALUPARAMBIL,PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY.PO. 2. DILEEP KUMAR.T,S/O.THATHWA PRAKASH, NIDHI, MERA NAGAR 207,MUNDACKAL EAST MURI, MUNDACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. PREEJA KUMARI.P.V,W/O.SHYAM KUMAR.T, CHALUPARAMBIL,PADA NORTH,KARUNAGAPPALLY.PO. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA,SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGPPALLY POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ADDL.R2 AND R3 IMPLEADED: 2. ADARSH, S/O.SASIDHARAN, AGED 25 YEARS, CHALUPARAMBIL, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. PUSHPALATHA, W/O.SASIDHARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, CHALUPARAMBIL, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY. ADDL.R2 AND R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 9.2.2010 IN CRL.M.A.NO.5721 OF 2009. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU) FOR ADDL.R2 & 3 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 5654 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.762 of 2009 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323, 324, 341, 447, 452, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 25.1.2010, the following order was passed: “When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 23.12.2009, the following order was passed providing an opportunity to settle the case between the parties: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel who appeared for the de facto complainant. B.A. NO. 5654 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 2. There are disputes between three brothers in respect of immovable property. The incident occurred on 1/8/2009. Two crimes are registered in respect of that incident. Crime No.762/2009 of Karunagappally Police Station was registered for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 447, 452, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The de facto complainant is Adarsh. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are the paternal uncles of Adarsh. 3. In Crime No.775/2009, the accused persons are Adarsh and his mother Pushpalatha. The de facto complainant is Dileep Kumar, who is accused No.3 in Crime No.762/2009. The offences alleged in Crime No.775/2009 are under Sections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is common case that the Resurvey Officials came to the property for measurement of the disputed property. The father of Adarsh was not available in station. It is also common case that Survey Officials could not complete the work. According to Adarsh, this was on their request to postpone the work as his father was not available. According to the accused in Crime No.762/2009, B.A. NO. 5654 OF 2009 :: 3 :: when the Re-survey Officials demanded to produce the title deeds, Adarsh did not do so and he provoked his paternal uncles by abusive words. 5. It is also common case that some incidents took place near the grill in front of the house of Adarsh. According to Adarsh and his mother, the grill was pushed open and his mother was pulled out and the accused committed the offence. According to the accused in Crime No.762/2009, the de facto complainant's mother sustained injuries when the grill came into contact with her head. 6. Counsel on either side submitted that it would be ideal if the parties settle their disputes and differences in respect of the properties and also in respect of the incidents which occurred on 1/8/2009. The counsel pray that one month's time may be granted to see whether the matter could be settled. Post after one month. 7. The undertaking not to arrest the petitioners will continue to be in force till then.” B.A. NO. 5654 OF 2009 :: 4 :: 2. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the de facto complainant did not fully co-operate with the settlement talks. According to the counsel for the de facto complainant, the default was on the side of the petitioners. 3. In the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 1st and 2nd February, 2010. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the de facto complainant also would be present before the investigating officer on 1st and 2nd February, 2010. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. 4. Post on 9th February, 2010. 5. The undertaking not to arrest the petitioners will continue to be in force till then. It is submitted by the counsel on either side that the attempts to settle the dispute can be continued in the presence of the investigating officer. This submission is recorded.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 25.1.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners. However, it is stated that the de facto complainant did not appear. B.A. NO. 5654 OF 2009 :: 5 :: 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 25.1.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners, 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 on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- 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 appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioners 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/