IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2752 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.469/09 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. ------------------------------------------ MANOJ @ NEBU GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, ERUPATHINALIL, KARACKAL P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 2752 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th May, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.469/2009 of Thiruvalla Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b), 452, 341, 506(ii), 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused committed house trespass and assaulted the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant is a Priest. It is stated that the de facto complainant overtook a vehicle driven by the accused for the purpose of turning to the right. Ignoring the indication given for turning, the accused overtook the vehicle of the de facto complainant. Thereafter, the de facto complainant wanted to overtake the vehicle of the accused, which the accused did not permit. It is alleged that the accused entered into the house of BA.2752/09 2 the de facto complainant and committed the offences. The injuries noted are not serious in nature. In the nature of allegations, I do not think, custodial interrogation is absolutely essential. There is also no case that the accused would flee from justice. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences, the injury sustained and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail for a period of one month on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 AM and 11 AM on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; BA.2752/09 3 B) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) On the expiry of the period mentioned above, the petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail. F) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE vgs.