IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2750 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.157/2009 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION PETITIONERS (S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ 1. C.K.KUNHIMON, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 50 YEARS, PERIYARAMKOTTIL, P.O. POLPPAKKARA, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. C.K. JUNAID, S/O. KUNHIMON, AGED 25 YEARS, PERIYARAMKOTTIL, POLPPAKKARA P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. C.K. JUBAIR, S/O. KUNHIMON, AGED 18 YEARS, PERIYARAMKOTTIL, POLPPAKKARA P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.2750 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.157 of 2009 of Ponnani Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 188 and 153A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, an order dated 15th September 2009 was passed which reads as follows: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and also taking into account the sensitive nature of the issue involved between the two parties, I am of the view that the petitioners should be directed to appear before the investigating officer for questioning. There will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer on 29th and 30th September, 2009 at 9 A.M. Post on 5.10.2009. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted BA No.2750/2009 2 that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.157/2009 of Ponnani Police Station until further orders.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners have complied with the direction. 5. 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 petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of 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; BA No.2750/2009 3 d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. The petitioners undertake not to commit breach of any direction or order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate or any other authority in respect of the disputed area and/or structure. 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 BA No.2750/2009 4 K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.2750 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the BA No.2750/2009 5 matter was settled between the parties before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 11.6.2009 and specific stipulations have been made as to the construction of the mosque as well as the temple. It is submitted that in view of the settlement, there is no impediment for the construction of the mosque. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought for further time to produce necessary documents to establish the contention. 2. Learned public prosecutor brought to my notice that as per the communication dated 5.12.2006 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur, to the Circle Inspector of Police, Ponnani, it was directed to ensure that no construction activities should be carried out at the disputed sites in view of the direction issued by the High Court in Writ Petition No.22942 of 2004. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the state of affairs has changed subsequently in view of the settlement. 4. The counsel for the petitioners as well as the public prosecutor shall produce necessary documents to support their respective contentions. Post on 24.8.2009. BA No.2750/2009 6 The undertaking not to arrest the petitioners will continue to be in force till then. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl BA No.2750/2009 7