IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 110 of 2010 CRIME NO.240 OF 2009 OF MURICKASSERRY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1-8 1. BIJU,AGED 34 YEARS,S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, VALUPARAYIL VEEDU,MANNATHARA KARA, VAITHIKKUDY, IDUKKI. 2. RENNY,AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.KURIEN, PERIYAMPURAM VEEDU,VATHIKUDY KARA, VATHIKUDY VILLAGE,IDUKKI. 3. VIJESH,AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.VARGHESE, KUZHIKKADU VEEDU,THOPRAMKUDY KARA, VATHIKUDY, IDUKKI. 4. SAJAN,AGED 28,S/O.JOSEPH,PALLATHU VEEDU, PERUMTHUTTI KARA,ATHIKUDY VILLAGE,IDUKKI. 5. ANIL,AGED 37 YEARS,S/O.KUTTAPPAN, PONNAPPARA VEEDU,VATHIKKUDY VILLAGE, IDUKKI. 6. BINISH,AGED 27 YEARS,KALAPPURAYIL VEEDU, THOPRAMKUDY KARA,VATHIKUDDY VILLAGE, IDUKKI. 7. KUNJANISH @ ANISH,S/O.SURENDRAN, AGED 26 YEARS, THEKKEKARA VEEDU,THOPRAMKUDY KARA, VATHIKUDDY VILLAGE,IDUKKI. 8. MADHU @ POKKAN,AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN,PARAMATTATHIL VEEDU,SCHOOL CITY, THOPRAMKUDY,VATHIKUDY VILLLAGE,IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: STATE STATE OF KERALA,REP;BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO.240 OF 2009 OF MURICKASSERRY POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 110 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 1.2.2010, 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. 1 to 8 in Crime No.240 of 2009 of Murickasserry Police Station,Idukki. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 341 and 379 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 7/12/2009, the accused persons forcibly took away the purse containing Rs.12,000/- from the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that while the fish waste was being transported in a tempo vehicle for the purpose of the petitioner, it was intercepted by the accused persons. The driver informed the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant came to the scene. At that time, the B.A. NO. 110 OF 2010 :: 2 :: accused persons forcibly took away the purse belonging to the de facto complainant, in which Rs.12,000/- was available. The accused persons also removed the tyres of the car belonging to the de facto complainant. They also removed the car stereo. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that subsequently, the de facto complainant stated that he got back the purse from some other place. The tyres of the car and the stereo were recovered by the police from the nearby place. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant had obtained the right to remove fish waste from different markets. He used to dump the fish waste in the residential area, where accused Nos. 1 to 8 and others are residing. This was causing great nuisance to the inhabitants of the locality. The accused persons and the people of the locality protested. They prevented the fish waste being dumped in the public place. Therefore, a false case was foisted against the petitioners. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a B.A. NO. 110 OF 2010 :: 3 :: direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 8th and 9th February, 2010. 6. Post on 15/02/2010. 7. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No. 240 of 2009 of Murickasserry Police Station, Idukki. 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 in the order dated 1.2.2010 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 1.2.2010 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 the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station B.A. NO. 110 OF 2010 :: 4 :: 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 appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioners 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 ahz/