IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4851 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.501/08 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- MANOJ.K.S, ROJA MANZIL, MAMPALLYKUNNAM, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.A.FAZALUDEEN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 4851 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to prosecution, accused nos.1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention committed various offences against the de facto complainant. 3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner is the 2nd accused and he was standing in front of his house with his kid and he was about to go to hospital. At that time, the de facto complainant came to him and asked for the mobile phone for informing the police about consumption of liquor by A1, A3 and A4, but the petitioner's mobile phone was not working and even if it was working, he would be reluctant to give the phone, since the persons who were consuming liquor might may get offended against him and he wanted to avoid any trouble. There was an altercation between them since mobile phone was not handed over and then, A1, A3 and A4 came to the scene and some incident happened in connection with this. The de facto complainant, therefore implicated the petitioner also, in the incident. [B.A.No.4851/08] 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the only specific overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he kicked the de facto complainant but his interrogation may not be required since he did not use any weapon. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the investigating officer for interrogation and on such condition he has no objection in granting bail to the petitioner. 4. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner and the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within 7 days from today and make himself available for interrogation. 2) Thereafter, in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that he will report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.