IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5727 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRMP.2028/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.102/2009 OF MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- RAGHU S., AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, KUZHIKKATTU VEEDU,KALLEPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.5727 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of October, 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 the accused in Crime No.102/2009 of Malampuzha Police Station, Palakkad. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 9/10/2009, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an agreement was entered into between the defacto complainant and the petitioner as evidenced by Annexure B. The following order was passed on 9/10/2009: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and taking note of the agreement entered into between the defacto complainant and the petitioner, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be B.A. No.5727 /2009 2 given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 15th and 16th October, 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to undergo the potency test. The investigating officer would be free to secure the presence of the defacto complainant to ascertain the veracity of the matters mentioned in the agreement and also in the statement to be given by the petitioner. Post on 22/10/2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.102 of 2009 of Malampuzha Police Station, Palakkad.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has complied with the directions contained in the order B.A. No.5727 /2009 3 dated 9/10/2009. 5. 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 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.10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; 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 scm