IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 368 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CRMP.55/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO.15/2010 0F KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1TO4 : ------------------------------------------- 1. JYOTHISH, S/O.MURALI, AGED 32 YEARS, VELLULAZHIKATHU VEEDU,MYLODE PO, POOYAPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SUNIL S/O.RAGHU, AGED 38 YEARS, PADINJATTATHIL HOUSE, MYLODE PO, POOYAPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. VILSON, S/O.JOY AGED 37, KARAVILA SHANVILA, KARICKAL, KARIMPINPUZHA PO, KOLLAM. 4. ABDUL KHAREEM, S/O.ABDUL BASHEER, AGED 42, SHIBU MANZIL, KILIYOOR, AMBALAMKUNNU, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, BY SRI.M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 368 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 24.02.2010, 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 4 in Crime No. 15/2010 of Kottarakara Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 392 and 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 28.12.2009, the de facto complainant was abducted by the accused, took him in a car to various places and he was hit with hitting block and other weapons. The first accused is the son-in-law of the de facto complainant. The first accused is a lawyer. It is stated that he is blind. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are the friends of accused No.1. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 25.12.2009, the de facto complainant was found in a compromising position with a lady in the B.A. No. 368 of 2010 2 E.S.I. Dispensary. The people of the locality caught hold of the de facto complainant and he was manhandled by them. It is submitted that the case is foisted against the petitioners in order to escape from the other incidents and also to wreak vengeance on the petitioners on account of the previous rivalry. 5. Taking into account the submissions made by 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 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 4th and 5th March, 2010. Post on 11.03.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.15/2010 of Kottarakara Police Station, Kollam District. The petitioners shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer. Hand over copy to both sides.” B.A. No. 368 of 2010 3 2. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that except third accused (third petitioner-Vilson), all the other petitioners have complied with the direction contained in the order dated 24.02.2010. 3. Since the third petitioner did not comply with the direction contained in the order dated 24.02.2010, I am of the view that he is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the third petitioner is employed abroad. Therefore, he cannot have any apprehension that he would be arrested in the State of Kerala, on an accusation of having committed a non bailable offence. Therefore, the Bail Application is liable to be dismissed in so far as it relates to the third petitioner(third accused). 4. 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 1, 2 and 4(accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4). There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners 1, 2 and 4 (accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4), the officer in charge of the police B.A. No. 368 of 2010 4 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 1, 2 and 4 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 1, 2 and 4 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioners 1, 2 and 4 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioners 1, 2 and 4 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 in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 1, 2 and 4 and it is dismissed in so far as it relates to the third petitioner. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln