IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 402 of 2010 CRIME NO.731 OF 2009 OF KUNNICODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SAJEEV, S/O.C.C.JOSEPH, CHERRAYIL VEEDU, TOWN WARD, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNICODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 402 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 2.2.2010, the following order was passed: “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.731 of 2009 of Kunnicode Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120B, 458, 427 and 506 (ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 22.12.2009, at 11.45 P.M., the accused persons trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, broke open the front door of the house and enquired whether the husband of the de facto complainant was available in the house. It is also alleged that the accused persons told the de facto complainant that her husband would be appropriately dealt with for his misdeeds. No injuries were caused to the de facto B.A. NO. 402 OF 2010 :: 2 :: complainant. It is alleged that the window panes of the house were destroyed causing a loss of Rs.6,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case was foisted on account of political rivalry. The FI statement itself would reveal that the husband of the de facto complainant is an active worker of a political party. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be 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 8.1.2010 and 9.1.2010. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. Post on 15.2.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.731 of 2009 of Kunnicode Police Station, Kollam District.” B.A. NO. 402 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 2.2.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner. 3. 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 2.2.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner, 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.15,000/- 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 between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; B.A. NO. 402 OF 2010 :: 4 :: e) 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/