IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6649 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.272/2011 OF KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------- 1. SAJI, S/O. EASWARAN, PULIYANIPUZHA HOUSE, KUNINJI P.O., VAZHITHALA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. ANOOP @ KUTTAI, S/O. NARAYANAN, PULIYANIPUZHA HOUSE, OTTALLUR P.O., KARIMKUNNAM, IDUKKI. 3. KESAVAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, NADUKKUDILIL HOUSE, MARIKA.P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, PAALAKKUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 4. USHA, W/O. KESAVAN, NADUKKUDILIL HOUSE, MARIKA P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, PAALAKKUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY B.A.No.6649/2011 RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION, KOOTHATTUKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6649 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioners are accused Nos.2, 1, 4 and 5 in Crime No.272 of 2011 of Koothattukulam Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 447, 341, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 03/08/2011 at 7.15 P.M., the accused persons entered into the compound of the de facto complainant and attacked him and others with dangerous weapons. The allegation is that accused No.1 attacked the injured with a knife resulting in serious injuries to him. The injuries attributable to the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code were inflicted by accused No.1. Though the other accused are also part of the incident, on a consideration of the allegations made against them, it is prima Bail Appln.No.6649/2011 : 2 : facie seen that the overt acts alleged against them are not directly attributable to the injury which attracted the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to accused No.1 (second petitioner). If anticipatory bail is granted to the second petitioner (accused No.1), it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation of the second petitioner (accused No.1) may be required in the case. The weapon of offence has also to be recovered. 4. As regards accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 (petitioners 1, 3 and 4), I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to them. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 (petitioners 1, 3 and 4), the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 (accused Nos.2, 4 and 5) shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on every Bail Appln.No.6649/2011 : 3 : Monday, for a period of three months or until further orders; B) The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 (accused Nos.2, 4 and 5) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 (accused Nos.2, 4 and 5) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioners 1, 3 and 4 (accused Nos.2, 4 and 5)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 dismissed in so far as it relates to 2nd petitioner (accused No.1) and it is allowed to the extent indicated above, in so far as it relates to petitioners Nos.1, 3 and 4/Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj