IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3249 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRMP.2307/2007 IN CRIME NO.144/CR/KTM/2007 OF CBCID, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: --------------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNA PANICKER, S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER, NJARAKATTU KALARICKAL HOUSE, NEDUVA AMSOM & DESOM, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI SMT.BINDU K. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------- B.A.No.3249 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.144/CR/KTM/07 of Crime Branch, Kottayam. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 295 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The second accused is one Reghupathy while the third accused is the Executive Officer of Travancore Devawom Board. 3. The petitioner is an astrologer by profession. He was one among the 21 astrologers engaged in a Devaprasnam held at Sabarimala in June 2006. It is alleged that after the Devaprasnam, the petitioner revealed that a lady had touched the idol of Lord Ayyappa. It is well known that women above the age of 10 and below 50 are not permitted to enter into the Sabarimala temple. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was aware that a cine actress by name Jayamala had entered into the sanctum sanctorum at Sabarimala temple and had touched the idol of Lord Ayyappa. It is alleged that the petitioner hatched a conspiracy with the other accused BA No.3249/2009 2 persons and revealed the same after the Devaprasnam with the aim of making fame and money. It is also alleged that with the help of the second accused, the petitioner contacted the cine actress Jayamala over mobile phone and instigated her to reveal the fact and to express regret and repentance. It is stated that Jayamala sent a fax message to the petitioner and revealed the news to the media. According to the prosecution, all these things were done for creating an impression among the public that the petitioner is a person who could unearth certain events in the Devaprasnam. It was with the aim of gaining fame and money. 4. The petitioner states that he is an ardent devotee of Lord Ayyappa. He claims that he is an astrologer of an international repute. He also states that he has conducted 'Ashtamangalyaprasnam' in various temples in India and abroad. Twenty one astrologers participated in the Devaprasnam and the findings were given after the conclusion of the Devaprasnam and all the astrologers were unanimous on the conclusions. The petitioner states that he has acted bonafide in the matter and the allegations made by the prosecution were denied. 5. The petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. That application BA No.3249/2009 3 was disposed of by the order dated 4th December 2007 with certain directions. The petitioner was directed to appear before the investigating officer on a date fixed by the investigating officer. An advocate on behalf of the petitioner was permitted to be present at that time. The investigating officer was directed to produce the petitioner, after recording his arrest, before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranni, and the learned Magistrate was directed to dispose of the application for bail on the same date. According to the petitioner, he received a notice issued by the investigating officer in January 2008. The petitioner states that as directed, he appeared before the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kottayam. After interrogation, the investigating officer was fully convinced that the petitioner was innocent and therefore, he did not arrest the petitioner and did not produce him before court. The petitioner states that he received Annexure II notice issued by the Superintendent of Police in the last week of May 2009. The notice is dated 26.5.2007 wherein reference is made to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 4.12.2007. Evidently, there is a mistake as to the date. The petitioner sent Annexure V letter dated 2.6.2009 to the Superintendent of Police wherein reference is made to the request dated 26.5.2009, most probably referring to Annexure II letter dated 26.5.2007. In BA No.3249/2009 4 Annexure V letter, the petitioner stated that he was admitted in the Apollo hospital, Chennai and he was advised to undergo a detailed check up, treatment and rest. It is further stated that after his discharge from the hospital, the petitioner would be reporting to the Superintendent. The petitioner has produced Annexure III and IV certificates issued by the Apollo hospital, Chennai, certifying that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 2.6.2009 and that a coronary artery bypass surgery was fixed to be held on 11th June 2009. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the surgery was over as scheduled and the petitioner is still in the hospital after surgery. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even going by the allegations levelled against the petitioner Section 295 IPC would not be attracted. The counsel submitted that the ingredients of Section 295 are conspicuously absent in the case. I do not think that a finding on this question is necessary for the purpose of disposal of this Bail Application. It is not feasible to arrive at a finding on that question since it may prejudice either the prosecution or the accused. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations made and the nature of the offence alleged, I am of the BA No.3249/2009 5 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.50,000/- 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 after three months; 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 csl