IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 10239 of 2011() -------------------------- OS.206/2011 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR CRIME NO.1936/2011 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ----------------------- 1. MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, "NILAVU", AARAMPUNNA, ELAMBAL.P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SREEKALA DEVI, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, PUNALUR-691 305, KOLLAM DISTRICT. STATE PROSECUTOR SRI.T.ASAF ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2011, ALONG WITH BA NO. 10551 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.Nos.10239 & 10551 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 ORDER Bail Application No.10239 of 2011 is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1936 of 2011 of Punaloor Police Station. Bail Application No.10551 of 2011 is filed by accused No.3 therein. These Bail Applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 452, 341, 324, 326, 427 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 02/12/2011, the accused persons trespassed into the property and house of the de facto complainant and attacked him and his wife. It is stated that accused No.1 had beaten the de facto complainant with a stick, as a result of which the de facto complainant sustained fracture on both his hands. He was admitted in the hospital. Doctors advised him to undergo surgery. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the property and the buildings in question and Bail Appln.Nos.10239 & 10551/2011 : 2 : other properties belonged to the father of the de facto complainant. As per a Will executed by him, the property in question devolved upon the de facto complainant. A portion of the property was sold by the de facto complainant to a stranger, namely, Rajan Kunju. Rajan Kunju and the petitioner assigned the property to accused No.1 as per registered assignment deed. Disputes arose between the first accused and the de facto complainant pertaining to the property. The first accused filed O.S.No.206 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Punalur against the de facto complainant and his wife, for injunction. That suit was decreed ex parte as per Annexure-A1 judgment dated 3rd September, 2011. In spite of the decree in O.S.No.206 of 2011, the de facto complainant and his wife continued their unlawful activities in the property. The first accused complained to the police. Stating that the police did not take any action, the first accused filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Punalur alleging offences under Sections 448, 427 and 188 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation and Crime No.1817 Bail Appln.Nos.10239 & 10551/2011 : 3 : of 2011 was registered at Punalur Police Station in which the de facto complainant and his wife are the accused persons. It is alleged by the petitioners that the police is out and out to help the de facto complainant and his wife. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that instead of protecting the interests of the first accused in terms of decree granted by civil court, the police acted in a manner contrary to the spirit of the decree granted by the court. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Bail Application No.10239 of 2011 submitted that the first accused was directed to appear before the police and he obeyed. He appeared before police on 02/12/2011 and he was beaten black and blue by the police. He was thereafter taken to the hospital and he was abandoned there. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused No.1 was arrested in the present case ie., Crime No.1936 of 2011. He complained of chest pain and accordingly he was taken to the Taluk Hospital. He was under observation in the Taluk Hospital. While so, he escaped from the custody and accordingly another Crime (Crime No.1942 of 2011) was registered for that offence. Two police men were suspended from service. Bail Appln.Nos.10239 & 10551/2011 : 4 : 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in great detail. I have also perused the case diary. 7. The de facto complainant has sustained fracture on his both hands. He sustained serious injuries. The allegation is that accused No.1 beat him with a stick, as a result of which the de facto complainant sustained fracture. The overt acts alleged against accused Nos.2 and 3 are not attributable to any fracture or grievous hurt sustained by the de facto complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to accused No.1. At the same time, I am of the view that the anticipatory bail can be granted to accused Nos.2 and 3. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to accused Nos.2 and 3 (second petitioner in B.A.No.10239 of 2011 and the petitioner in B.A.No.10551 of 2011). There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of accused Nos.2 and 3 (second petitioner in B.A.No.10239 of 2011 and the petitioner in B.A.No.10551 of 2011), the officer in charge of Bail Appln.Nos.10239 & 10551/2011 : 5 : 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) Accused Nos.2 and 3 (second petitioner in B.A.No.10239 of 2011 and the petitioner in B.A.No.10551 of 2011) 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) Accused Nos.2 and 3 (second petitioner in B.A.No.10239 of 2011 and the petitioner in B.A.No.10551 of 2011) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) Accused Nos.2 and 3 (second petitioner in B.A.No.10239 of 2011 and the petitioner in B.A.No.10551 of 2011) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) Accused Nos.2 and 3 (second petitioner in B.A.No.10239 of 2011 and the petitioner in Bail Appln.Nos.10239 & 10551/2011 : 6 : B.A.No.10551 of 2011) 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. Bail application No.10239 of 2011 is partly allowed and the prayer for anticipatory bail made by the second petitioner is granted and the prayer made by the first petitioner is rejected. Bail Application No.10551 of 2011 is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj