IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6385 of 2011 CRMP.2120/2011 OF DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.200 OF 2011 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. PETITIONERS : ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5: --------------------------- 1. JOHNSON, S/O.MICHEAL PUSHPARAJ, AGED 19 YEARS, PANDUKARA VEEDU, BHAGAVATHIPARA, MENONPARA, PALAKKAD. 2. RAMESH, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 23 YEARS, MENONPARA, PALAKKAD. 3. RAVI, S/O.MOHANAN, AGED 27 YEARS, KOTTILPARA, ELIPPARA, KOZHIPPARA POST. 4. SUJITHRAN S., S/O.SUNDHARAN, AGED 23 YEARS, ANAPPARA, KOTTEKKAD, KALIPPARA POST. 5. ARAVINDHAKSHAN, S/O.DHURAYA, AGED 27 YEARS, VALAYAKKARANCHALLA HOUSE, MENONPARA POST, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 6385 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th 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 5 in Crime No.200 of 2011 of Kozhinjampara Police Station, Palakkad District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant while he was going to the police station for lodging a complaint against the accused who assaulted the de facto complainant and his friend on an earlier occasion. The allegation is that accused No.2 attacked the de facto complainant with a sword on his neck. Since the de facto complainant avoided it, he sustained injury on his eyebrow. BAIL APPL. NO. 6385 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 4. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 11th August, 2011, the following order was passed: “5. Taking into account the allegations against accused No.2, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to accused No.2. The Bail Application is liable to be rejected in so far as it relates to accused No.2. As regards accused No.1 and accused Nos.3 to 5, I am of the view that they should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 to appear before the investigating officer on 18.8.2011 and 19.8.2011. 6. Post on 24.8.2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.200 of 2011 of Kozhinjampara Police Station, Palakkad, till 26.8.2011. Accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any. They shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.” BAIL APPL. NO. 6385 OF 2011 :: 3 :: 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 11.8.2011 has been complied with by petitioners 1 and 3 to 5/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5. 6. 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 11.8.2011 has been complied with by petitioners 1 and 3 to 5/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 1 and 3 to 5/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 1 and 3 to 5/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioners 1 and 3 to 5/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, for a period of two months; BAIL APPL. NO. 6385 OF 2011 :: 4 :: b) Petitioners 1 and 3 to 5/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) Petitioners 1 and 3 to 5/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) Petitioners 1 and 3 to 5/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. For the reasons stated in the order dated 11.8.2011, the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the second petitioner/accused No.2 and the Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 1 and 3 to 5/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/