IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 409 of 2010 CRIME NO.618 OF 2009 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 3 -------------------------------------------- 1. MANOJ, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN PILLAI, 136, AZHIKATHU VADAKKADATHU VEEDU, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 2. BIJU, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN PILLAI, 136, AZHIKATHU VADAKKADATHU VEEDU, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 409 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.618 of 2009 of Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 447 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 13.12.2009 at 6 PM, the accused persons forcibly entered into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked the de facto complainant and her husband. It is stated that the de facto complainant and her husband were attacked on account of the fact that the de facto complainant married a person belonging to another community. It is stated that the accused persons are the relatives of the de facto complainant. The overt act alleged against the first petitioner (first accused) is that he had beaten the husband of the de facto complainant with hands. However, the overt act alleged against the second petitioner (third B.A. NO. 409 OF 2010 :: 2 :: accused) is that he hit on the face of the de facto complainant with a brick and thereby she lost one tooth. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can not be granted in favour of the second petitioner (third accused). If anticipatory bail is granted to the second petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. More over, from the facts narrated above, it is clear that the second petitioner (third accused) is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he having attacked a lady aged 25, resulting in the loss of her tooth. 5. However, the case of the first petitioner (first accused) stands on a different footing. The overt act alleged against him does not relate to any of the serious injuries caused either on the de facto complainant or on her husband. Therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner (first accused). 6. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the first petitioner (first accused), the officer in charge of the police B.A. NO. 409 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 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 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) The first petitioner (first accused) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The first petitioner (first accused) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The first petitioner (first accused) 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. The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the second petitioner (third 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 ahz/