IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 582 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.74/2010 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 & 6 ------------------------------------------------- 1. SHEEJA, W/O.MOHANAN NAIR, ANANDA BHAVAN, MURIYANKARA, PARASSALA (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NAGESWARI, W/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, ANAVOOR DESOM, ANAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SYAM, S/O.JERMICERS, HOUSE NO.35, ST.PETER'S NAGAR, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ANTONY, S/O.MUSTAF, HOUSE NO.34, HOSPITAL JUNCTION, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. VINOD KUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ARCHA NIVAS, THAZHASSERI, AVRA - 43, PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.V.MADHURIPAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.582 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 ORDER When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 10.2.2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 in Crime No.74/2010 of Parassala Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 447, 323, 324, 120-B, 308 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The first accused is the wife of the de facto complainant. The second accused is the mother's sister of the first accused. It is stated that between the first accused and the de facto complainant, there are litigations and four cases are pending before the Family Court. 4. After the filing of the Bail Application, the third petitioner(accused No.3) was arrested and therefore this Bail Application as regards him has become infructuous. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners BA No.582 /2010 2 stated that there are three houses in a compound having an extent of about 1.5 acres. It is stated that in one of the those houses, the first accused and her children are residing. The Family Court had passed an order of injunction restraining the de facto complainant not to obstruct the pathway to that house. It is stated on 21.01.2010, the de facto complainant and his henchmen obstructed the pathway. On the next day, the matter was reported to the Family Court. It is stated that on 24.01.2010, the de facto complainant came to he house in which the first accused was residing and abused and attacked her. 6. The prosecution case is that on 24.01.2010 at 6 P.M., the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant. The first accused sprinkled chilly powder on the face of the de facto complainant and the accused persons assaulted him with sticks and hands. 7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5(accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6) to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5(accused BA No.582 /2010 3 Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6) to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 16th and 17th February, 2010. Post on 23.02.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 (accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6) will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.74/2010 of Parassala Police Station. Petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5(accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6) shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the direction contained in the order dated 10.2.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 10.2.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5, the officer in charge of the police BA No.582 /2010 4 station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) Petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) Petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 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. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 and it is dismissed as infructuous in so far as it relates to petitioner No.3. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl