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. 919 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------------ Cr. No.41/2010 OF KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM. PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. KUNHIMUHAMMED, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. MOIDITTY, KARUVANKATT KAVIL HOUSE, THAVANOOR.P.O, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2. SHEREEF.K.K, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. KUNHALI, KUNNUPURATH HOUSE, KUTTIPURAM.P.O, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, 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. 919 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 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 and 2 in Cr. No.41/2010 of Kuttipuram Police Station, Malappuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323, 324, 354 and 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 2/03/2010, the following order was passed: “After having heard 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 8th and 9th March, 2010. Post on 15/03/2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further B.A. No. 919/ 2010 2 orders in connection with Cr. No.41 of 2010 of Kuttipuram Police Station. The petitioners shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor that the first petitioner (first accused) has complied with the direction contained in the order dated 2/3/2010. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he has no instruction from the second petitioner (second accused) as to the compliance or otherwise of the order. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the second petitioner (second accused) did not comply with the order. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the second petitioner (second accused) and the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as the second petitioner is concerned. 7. 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 first petitioner (first accused). There will be a direction that in the B.A. No. 919/ 2010 3 event of the arrest of the first petitioner (first accused), the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The first petitioner (first accused) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The first petitioner (first accused) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The first petitioner(first accused) shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the second petitioner (second accused) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to the first petitioner (first accused) . K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm