IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6231 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.549/2009 OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- XAVI RAPHEL.M, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.M.L.RAPHEL, MANIYAKKU HOUSE, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6231 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.549 of 2009 of Thrissur Town East Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 2nd December, 2009, the following order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 10th and 11th December, 2009. Post on 16.12.2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested BA No.6231/2009 2 until further orders in connection with Crime No. 549 of 2009 of Thrissur Town East Police Station.” The petitioner shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer. The investigating officer shall make every endeavour to ensure the presence of the de facto complainant so as to afford an opportunity to the parties to settle the disputes. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disputes and differences between the petitioner and the de facto complainant have been settled between them. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the de facto complainant also appeared before the investigating officer and the matter was settled between the parties. He added that in view of the settlement, it is not necessary to arrest the petitioner. This submission is recorded and the Bail Application is closed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl BA No.6231/2009 3 K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6231 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 ORDER Heard the counsel for quite some time. The learned BA No.6231/2009 4 counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would like to settle the dispute with the de facto complainant. Post after two weeks. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested till the next posting date. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl