IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6373 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.217/2009 OF IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------- RANJITH T., S/O.RAGHAVAN, THUMBATH HOUSE, PAZHASSI AMSOM, NELLUNNI DESOM, MATTANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE; --------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRIKKUR POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6373 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.217 of 2009 of Irikkur Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 5.11.2009, the following order was passed: “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 11th and 12th November, 2009. Post on 18.11.2009. It is submitted by the learned Public BA No.6373/2009 2 Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.217 of 2009 of Irikkur Police Station.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order dated 5.11.2009. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner disclosed to the investigating officer that the disputes were settled between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. 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; BA No.6373/2009 3 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 csl