IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6313 of 2011 CRIME NO.488 OF 2011 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3: -------------------- 1. ANEESH KUMAR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN T.T., UMICHI, MADIKKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. SUNEESH KUMAR, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN T.T., UMICHI, MADIKKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. SUNIL.E.V., AGED 30 YEARS, S.I,E.V.NARAYANAN, ORKOL, MADIKKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 6313 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.488 of 2011 of Nileshwar Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 21.7.2011, the accused attacked the de facto complainant. Accused No.1 tried to strangulate the de facto complainant using a cycle chain. The allegation against accused Nos.2 and 3 is that they had beaten the de facto complainant with hands. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. BAIL APPL. NO. 6313 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that the first accused/first petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As regards the other accused, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to them. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rupees Ten thousand each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioners 2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 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) Petitioners 2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) Petitioners 2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) Petitioners 2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; BAIL APPL. NO. 6313 OF 2011 :: 3 :: e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner/first accused and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 and 3/ accused Nos.2 and 3. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/