IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 157 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.381/2009 OF POTHENCODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3 ----------------------------------------------- 1. SHIBU, S/O.K.P.VASAVAN, AGED 35 YEARS, GOWRISADANAM, MANGALATHUKONAM, KATTAYIKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VISHNU.V.N @ UNNI, S/O.NIRMALA, AGED 35 YEARS, DO.. DO... DO... BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHENCODE POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.157 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010 ORDER When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 28.1.2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.381 of 2009 of Pothencode Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 427 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the overt act alleged against the petitioners is that they had beaten and stamped the de facto complainant with hands. The injuries noted in the Out Patient records, apparently, are not attributable to the overt acts allegedly done by accused Nos.2 and 3. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be BA No.157/2010 2 given to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 3rd and 4th February, 2010. Post on 9.2.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.381 of 2009 of Pothencode Police Station. The petitioners shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction contained in the order dated 28.1.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 28.1.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of BA No.157/2010 3 the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) 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