IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5780 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 354/2009 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 : ------------------------------------------------------ 1. SAJITH LAL, S/O. THANKAPPAN, TC 55/1301, CHANDRA BAVAN, VADAKKETHOPPU, NEERAMANKARA, KAIMANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MADHUSOODANAN, S/O. THANKAPPAN, TC 15/1364, CHANDRA BHAVAN, KAIMANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARAMANA POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. AMJAD ALI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5780 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 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 and 2 in Crime No.354/2009 of Karamana Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 16.08.2009, the de facto complainant, a police constable was deputed for enquiring into the truth or otherwise of a petition. In that petition, it was alleged that students of a Tuition Centre were being attacked by some anti social elements. The de facto complainant went to the place. At that time, at about 5.30 P.M., he saw two persons (the accused persons)quarrelling with a lady. The defacto complainant approached them and disclosed that he was a police constable and asked them the reason why they were quarrelling. At that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused the de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant was about to contact the Sub B.A. No. 5780 of 2009 2 Inspector of Police over phone, he was attacked by accused Nos.1 and 2 and fisted him on his abdomen and shoulder. 4. The accused persons state that on 16.08.2009, the wife of the first accused was attacked by the police personnel at her residence. It is alleged by the wife of the first accused that her brother Murukan was taken into custody by the police on the allegation that he was making comments on the girl students in the Tuition Centre. At that time, the wife of the first accused asked why Murukan was being taken into custody. The Police constables attacked the wife of the first accused and she was admitted in the hospital on 16.08.2009 at 7 P.M. Her F.I. Statement was recorded by the police on 18.08.2009. 5. It is submitted that the present case under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code was foisted against the petitioners in order to escape from the allegation that the wife of the first petitioner was attacked by the police officials. 6. The truth or otherwise of the allegations and the counter allegations could be ascertained only at the trial of the case. The question is whether the petitioners should be granted B.A. No. 5780 of 2009 3 Anticipatory Bail in the present case as they apprehend harassment and humiliation by the police, if they were to be arrested. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the apprehension entertained by the petitioners is without substance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners. 7. 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 petitioners 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; B.A. No. 5780 of 2009 4 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 ln