IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2162 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.78/08 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.3 -------------------- DAMODARAN, S/O.LATE CHOYIKUTTY, KARAT HOUSE, PERUMANNA AMSOM,KUTTIKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2162 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st accused. Altogether there are 3 accused persons. The parties are involved in a civil dispute. It is alleged that the 3 accused persons had intentionally inflicted injuries including grievous injury on the defacto complainant and his wife. The wife had suffered fracture of a finger. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a dispute regarding a property. The accused are not the trespassers. The defacto complainant had trespassed into their property while accused persons were attending the work in the property. There was a push and pull consequent to illegal trespass of the defacto complainant. The petitioner had also suffered injuries. It is totally incorrect to say that the defacto complainant or his wife suffered any injuries as a result of infliction by any weapon. A perusal of the wound certificate would show that there was no question of any weapon being used to B.A.No.2162 of 2008 2 inflict grievous injury allegedly suffered by the wife of the defacto complainant. In any view of the matter, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. After discussions at the Bar, the learned Public Prosecutor does not also oppose the application. My attention has been drawn to the nature of the allegations as also the nature of the injuries suffered by the victims. 4. In the result, this Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 21.04.2008. He shall be enlarged on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 3 p.m on 22.04.2008 and 23.04.2008. During this period, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer B.A.No.2162 of 2008 3 between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of one month and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so; iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all; iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 21.04.08 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 21.04.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-