IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4275 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.3631/2009 Dated 06/07/2009 CRIME NO.11/2009 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- REJI, S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 40 YEARS, PELAKKUDI HOUSE, KOLIYADI P.O., NENMENI AMSOM, S. BATHERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. V. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.4275 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.11/2009 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 415 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case was initiated by the defacto complainant by filing a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- I, Sulthan Bathery, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner had filed B.A. No.3631/2009. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 6/07/2009, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the charge was laid in the case on 31/05/2009. I disposed of B.A. No.4275 / 2009 Page numbers the Bail Application holding thus:“Since the charge was laid by the investigating officer, I do not think it is necessary to entertain the application for anticipatory bail. There cannot be any apprehension for the petitioner that he will be arrested by the investigating officer on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. The Bail Application has therefore become unnecessary. It is accordingly, closed.” 5. The present Bail Application is filed by the petitioner stating that he apprehends arrest and the submission made in B.A. No.3631/2009 that charge was laid was not correct. An order dated 28/07/2009 was passed by me, which reads as follows: “ The petitioner had filed B.A. No. 3631/2009 for anticipatory bail. That application was closed on 6/07/2009 on the submission made by the learned public prosecutor that charge was laid in the case on 31/05/2009. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted so on the basis of the written statement from the Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthan Batheri. B.A. No.4275 / 2009 Page numbers 2. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the charge sheet. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- I, Sulthan Batheri has returned the copy application stating that the charge sheet was not filed in the case till 17/07/2009. 3. The petitioner apprehends arrest. There will be a direction to the Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthan Batheri Police Station, not to arrest the petitioner for a period of two weeks.” 6. Today, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge has not been filed in the case. It is also stated that the submission made earlier in B.A. No.3631/2009 was a mistake. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is being constantly threatened by police and he apprehends arrest even now. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is over and charge is about to be laid. 8. 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. B.A. No.4275 / 2009 Page numbers 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.25,000/- 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. 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 scm