IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 35 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO.1164/2009 OF THIRUVALL POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. ....... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS VARGHESE, ODACKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, MATHIL BHAGOM MURI, THIRUVALLA P.O. 2. OMANA MANI, W/O. THOMAS VARGHESE, ODACKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, MATHIL BHAGOM MURI, THIRUVALLA P.O. BY ADV. M.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 35 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 12/01/2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1164 of 2009 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 148, 149, 447, 188, 323, 354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and the de facto complainant are neighbours. There is a dispute between them regarding a pathway. The petitioners filed O.S.No.522 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla against the de facto complainant. In that suit, Annexure A interim order dated 19.11.2009 was passed restraining the de facto complainant from obstructing the petitioners from using the pathway and restraining the de facto complainant from annexing the pathway to her property. It is also stated that the de facto complainant filed O.S.No.541 B.A. No. 35 / 2010 2 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla against the petitioners. In that suit, on 28.11.2009, an interim order was passed restraining the defendants therein (petitioners herein) from entering into the property of the de facto complainant and restraining her from putting up a gate in the property. According to the petitioners, the de facto complainant installed a gate in the pathway, contrary to the interim orders passed in the suits. The prosecution case is that on 13.12.2009, the petitioners and ten others trespassed into the compound of the de facto complainant and forcibly removed the gate, value of which would come to Rs.12,000/-. It is also alleged that the accused persons pushed the de facto complainant to the wall and punched her. 4. It is seen that there are civil disputes pending between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are interested in settling the disputes with the de facto complainant and if an opportunity is provided, there is every likelihood of the matter being settled between the neighbours. 5. 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. B.A. No. 35 / 2010 3 Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 16.1.2010 and at 11 AM on 17.1.2010. The investigating officer will make every effort to secure the presence of the de facto complainant on the dates on which the petitioners are directed to appear before the investigating officer so that the possibilities of settlement could be explored effectively. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. 6. Post on 21.1.2010. The undertaking not to arrest the petitioners will continue to be in force until further orders. ” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners have complied with the direction contained in the order dated 12/01/2010. 3. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though the de facto complainant appeared before the investigating officer, the matter could not be settled. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offenceand other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. B.A. No. 35 / 2010 4 There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police 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) The first petitioner 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 petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioners 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 allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm