IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4835 of 2010() ------------------------- ORDER DTD 24.11.2010 IN CRIMINAL M P NO.3398 OF 2010 IN CRL.M C NO.505 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------- SHAIJU, S/O.ASHOKAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHENVEEDU, CHARUMMOODU, KARIKKAKOM, TITANIUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PETTAH POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUALM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV.SRI. K J MOHAMMED ANSARI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4835 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.121 of 2009 of Pettah Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram for offence punishable under Sec.307 r/w Sec.34 IPC. The alleged incident was on 25.03.2009. Petitioner was granted anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions one among them being that he shall report to the investigating officer on all Mondays between 8 a.m to 10 a.m. Petitioner stated that he complied with the condition for about one year and later filed Crl.M.P.No.575 of 2010 for modification of the condition. Learned Sessions Judge passed Annexure-2, order whereby the condition was modified by directing petitioner to report to the investigating officer on the last Saturday of each month between 8 a.m and 9a.m. Petitioner states that he has complied with that condition for about eighteen months. Thereafter he filed Annexure-A3, application for lifting or modifying the condition which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by Annexure-A4, order stating that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is not a fit case to lift or modify the condition further. Learned counsel states that Crl.M.C.No.4835 of 2010 -: 2 :- petitioner is employed in a temple and that the condition is causing much hardship to him. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is not completed and that one of the culprits is yet to be traced and arrested. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to think that a condition requiring the petitioner to report to the investigating officer is not required but, his presence for further investigation is necessary. For that appropriate other conditions are to be imposed. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed lifting the condition imposed on petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on that last Saturday of each month. Instead, it is directed that until further orders petitioner shall not go beyond Thiruvananthapuram district except with the previous permission of the Magistrate concerned and on intimating the investigating officer as to the place where petitioner proposes to go and the period of stay and contact address/phone outside Thiruvananthapuram district. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-