IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3711 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 369/2009 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION ........................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 AND 4: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SASI, INDIVILA THEKKUMKARA VEEDU, KADAKKAL,KOLLAM. 2. SYAM ALIAS THUKLI, S/O.SASI, INDIVILA THEKKUMKARA VEEDU, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2009ALONG WITH .B.A.NO. 3522 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3522 of 2009 & 3711 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009 O R D E R Bail Application No. 3522/2009 is filed by the first accused while Bail Application No. 3711/2009 is filed by accused Nos. 3 and 4 in Crime No. 369/2009 of Kadakkal Police Station in Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the Case Diary. The defacto complainant has sustained grievous injuries. The allegation is that the first accused attacked the defacto complainant with an iron rod. The defacto complainant sustained fracture on both his legs. One Shyju spilled chilly powder on the face of the defacto complainant. No overt act as such is seen attributed to accused Nos. 3 and 4. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other B.A. No. 3522 of 2009 & 3711 of 2009 2 circumstances, I am of the view that first accused is not entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the case of accused Nos. 3 and 4 stands on a different footing. Since no overt act as such is alleged against them, I am inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to Accused Nos. 3 and 4 (petitioners in B. A. No. 3711/2009). There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of accused Nos. 3 and 4, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) Accused Nos. 3 and 4 (petitioners in B. A. No. 3711 of 2009) shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on all alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) Accused Nos. 3 and 4 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) Accused Nos. 3 and 4 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. B.A. No. 3522 of 2009 & 3711 of 2009 3 D) Accused Nos. 3 and 4 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 No. 3522/2009 is dismissed and Bail Application No. 3711/2009 is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln