IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 632 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRMP.239/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.355/07 OF KASABA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS ---------------------------- 1. C.ZULFIKER ALI, S/O A.CHELLA, AGED 33 YEARS, 11/447, VADAKKUMURI, KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD. 2. MUJEEB RAHMAN S., S/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED, AGED 29 YEARS, 20/387, RESIDING -DO- -DO- 3. ABDUL RAHMAN M., S/O LATE P.A.MOOSAKUTTY, AGED 41 YEARS, 22/224, CHIRAKKAD, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD. 4. HABEEB RAHMEN M., S/O LATE P.A.MOOSAKUTTY, AGED 35 YEARS, 22/224, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR, KASABA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 632 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 to 4. Altogether, there are 6 accused persons. All the 4 petitioners herein are named in the F.I.R. They face allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.326 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. The alleged incident took place on 25/12/07 at about 1.30 p.m. It is alleged that the dispute was regarding the erection/maintenance of a hoarding. A counter case has also been registered. That case was also registered under Sec.326 of the IPC. The petitioners in the said case have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioners' application was rejected on the ground that they apparently appear to be the aggressors. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners B.A. No. 632 OF 2008 -: 2 :- apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The learned Sessions Judge erred grossly in not granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners and in entering a finding that the petitioners appear to be the aggressors and denying bail to them on that ground. Even if the entire allegations are accepted, it was a case of conflict and disputes between the two rival contestants at the scene regarding the hoarding. It would be premature to assume, at the moment, that one of them was the aggressor and other was the victim of aggression. Going by the nature of the weapons, the petitioners had allegedly used only wooden sticks while the others had wielded iron rods. In any view of the matter, the petitioners may also be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application. The learned Public Prosecutor only submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed to secure the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am persuaded to agree that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners herein also. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to the facts in any greater detail in B.A. No. 632 OF 2008 -: 3 :- this order. 5. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 19/2/08. They shall be released on regular bail on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 20//2/08 and 21/2/08. During this period the Investigator shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months. Subsequently, they shall so make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to B.A. No. 632 OF 2008 -: 4 :- arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all; (iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 19/2/08 as directed in clause (i) above, they shall be released on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/- each without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 19/2/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge