IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4080 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.2552/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I,HOSDRUG CRIME NO.62/08 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER: 7TH ACCUSED ---------------------------- V.M.SALIM, S/O.V.M.MUHAMMED, AGED 36, MOONAMMILE, AMBALATHARA, PO.PULLUR HOSDURG TALUK BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S.I.OF POLICE, RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4080 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 447, 326, 307, 316, 120(B) and 149 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused 1 to 3 trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and poured acid on him as well as his wife and the servant, who were in the varandha and nearby. The de facto complainant's wife was fully pregnant at that time and she had a miscarriage because of the very serious burn injuries sustained by her. Petitioner and the 8th accused allegedly conspired to commit the offences due to previous enmity. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. The petitioner has no enmity towards the de facto complainant. He has only intervened in a dispute between the de facto complainant and his former wife and because of the intervention, the de facto complainant had to execute documents conveying certain properties to his wife. Copy of the sale deed is Annexure A2. Other agreement was also to be BA.4080/08 2 executed by the de facto complainant in favour of his former wife and copy of one of such agreements is Annexure A3. Since the petitioner happened to be the mediator and it was at his instance that the de facto complainant had to convey the property and come to a settlement, the de facto complainant developed some enmity towards the petitioner. This is the only reason why he has unnecessarily dragged the petitioner into the crime, it is submitted. The petitioner is in custody from 7.6.2008 onwards. No recovery is to be effected through the petitioner. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case diary reveals a case of brutal attack on the de facto complainant, his pregnant wife and the servantby pouring acid. They sustained serious burn injuries on their body. Considering the cruel manner in which the offences were committed, the petitioner does not deserve bail, it is submitted. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is the master brain behind the crime. 5. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the case diary, I find that the motive is not quite clear from the First Information Statement. It is mentioned therein that the de facto complainant did not know why they were attacked. He specifically stated in the First Information Statement that neither in gulf country (where he was working) nor in his native place does he have any enemy. Later, BA.4080/08 3 during questioning de facto complainant gave statement referring to some previous incident which indicate the probability of the petitioner's conspiracy. Petitioner is in custody from 8.6.2008. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary and taking into account the circumstances under which the allegations against the petitioner are brought on record, I find that bail can be granted to the petitioner on stringent conditions. Hence, the petitioner is granted bail on the following terms and conditions: i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court below. ii) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer on every alternate days between 10 AM and 1 PM until further orders. iii) Petitioner shall not enter the limits of the police station within which the crime is registered except for compliance of the direction clause (ii) above, until further orders. iv) Petitioner shall not leave Kasaragod district, except with the previous permission of the learned Magistrate concerned. BA.4080/08 4 v) Petitioner shall not influence or threaten any witness or tamper with evidence and in case of breach of this condition, the bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.