IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 901 of 2010 CRIME NO.89 OF 2010 OF PAYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 10: -------------------- 1. K.IQBAL, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 32 YEARS KANNOOKKARATHI, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, ANGADU, PAYYANNUR. 2. K.P.FAIZAL, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 32 YEARS KANDATHILEPURAYIL, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, ANGADU, PAYYANNUR. 3. K.MUJEEB, S/O.HAMEED, AGED 32 YEARS, KOOKKA, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, ANGADU, PAYYANNUR. 4. K.P.P.SAHBEER, S/O.USMAN, AGED 20 YEARS KURUVATTUKIZHAKKEPURAYIL, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, ANGADU, PAYYANNUR. 5. C.H.AFZAL, S/O.AHAMMED, AGED 23 YEARS, CHEKKINTAKATHU, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, ANGADU, PAYYANNUR. 6. K.SIRAJ AHAMMED, S/O.KUNHU MOHAMMED, KAKKATHALAYAN, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, ANGADU, PAYYANNUR. 7. A.FAWAZ, S/O.ABUBACKER, AGED 22 YEARS, ANJILATHU HOUSE, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, ANGADU, PAYYANNUR. 8. K.P.MOHAMMED, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 18 YEARS KANDATHILE PURAYIL, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, ANGADU, PAYYANNUR. 9. K.P.P.FAZIL, S/O.RAVUF, AGED 20 YEARS, KURUVATTU KIZHAKKEPURAYIL, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, ANGADU, PAYYANNUR. 10. T.FAIZAL, S/O.AHAMMED, AGED 26 YEARS, THAYYIL HOUSE, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, ANGADU, PAYYANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, CRIME NO.89 OF 2010 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 901 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd 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.1 to 10 in Crime No.89 of 2010 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 2.2.2010, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant and others on account of the rivalry due to a quarrel which arose in connection with the conduct of a football tournament. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked the de facto complainant and three others with iron rods. The de facto complainant sustained multiple lacerated injuries on his head. B.A. NO. 901 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that accused Nos.4 to 10 are students. It is also submitted that the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant and others are not attributable to any of the overt acts committed by accused Nos.3 to 10. It is also submitted that in respect of the incident, another crime was registered as Crime No.94 of 2010, in which the accused persons are the de facto complainant in Crime No.89 of 2010 and others. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the injuries sustained and other circumstances, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to them, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. 6. However, the case of accused Nos.3 to 10 stands on a B.A. NO. 901 OF 2010 :: 3 :: different footing. The injuries sustained by the de facto complainant and three others are not directly attributable to any of the overt acts committed by accused Nos.3 to 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners 3 to 10 (accused Nos.3 to 10). 7. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 3 to 10 (accused Nos.3 to 10), 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) Petitioners 3 to 10 (accused Nos.3 to 10) shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on every Sunday, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) Petitioners 3 to 10 (accused Nos.3 to 10) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) Petitioners 3 to 10 (accused Nos.3 to 10) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) Petitioners 3 to 10 (accused Nos.3 to 10) shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; B.A. NO. 901 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 dismissed in so far as it relates to petitioners 1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 2) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 3 to 10 (accused Nos.3 to 10). (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/