IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1340 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------------ CRIME NO.36/2010 OF PERUMPETTY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONERS/1ST & 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------- 1. JOY CHACKO CHENNAMALA VEEDU, NARAKATHANI.P.O., MALLAPPALLY. 2. FEBIN CHARLES JOY S/O. JOY CHACKO -DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.1340 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22ndday of March, 2010 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.36/2010 of Perumpetty Police Station, Pathanamthitta. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 14/2/2010, the petitioners, father and son, attacked the de facto complainant and the de facto complainant sustained serious injuries. It would appear that there was some quarrel between the de facto complainant and the second accused. The allegation is that thereafter when the first accused, the father of the second accused, asked the de facto complainant about the incident, accused No.2 attacked the de facto complainant asking why the de facto complainant had assaulted the first petitioner. The first B.A. No.1340/2010 2 petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant with stick and stone, which caused grievous hurt. He had to undergo a surgery as a result of the injuries sustained. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Crime No.33/2010 was registered on 15/2/2010 in respect of the incident which occurred on 14/2/2010. In that case, the second petitioner herein is the de facto complainant and the accused persons include the de facto complainant in the present case. Crime No.33/2010 was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 324 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be seen that the grievous injuries caused to the de facto complainant are attributable to the overt acts done by the first petitioner/first accused. The overt acts made by the second petitioner/second accused have not resulted in any grievous injuries to the de facto complainant. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the second B.A. No.1340/2010 3 petitioner/second accused. At the same time, I am of the view that the first petitioner/first accused is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the first petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the second petitioner/second accused, the officer in charge of the police 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 second petitioner/second accused (Febin Charles Joy) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required. B) The second petitioner/second accused (Febin Charles Joy) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The second petitioner/second accused (Febin Charles Joy) shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. B.A. No.1340/2010 4 D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner/ first accused and it is allowed in the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to the second petitioner/second accused. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm