IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3112 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.309/2010 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION ............. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------------------------- FAISAL, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, PALLITHOTUNGAL HOUSE, GANASAMANGALAM, P.O.VATANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE S.I. OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No.3112 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 O R D E R Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to prosecution, petitioner (A3) along with other accused wrongfully restrained and assaulted de facto complainant and attempted to commit murder. Iron rod and sword were used for the commission of the offence. The incident happened on 09.04.2010 at about 10. P.M. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is some discrepancy regarding involvement of the petitioner in the case. F.I. Statement would show that one “Jagir” had inflicted cut injury on the de facto complainant but Annexure-C would show that one “Mubarak” inflicted the injury. Petitioner's name is not shown in the F.I. Statement. Petitioner actually surrendered before the police on 12.05.2010 on knowing that he is implicated in the offences and he is in custody for the past 16 days. It is also submitted that petitioner is implicated only because he B.A. No.3112 of 2010 2 knows the first accused and when the police came to him in search of the first accused, his whereabouts could not be stated by petitioner. First accused is yet to be arrested. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations made, petitioner had beaten the de facto complainant with an iron rod. Though his name is not mentioned in the F.I. Statement, on investigation, his involvement is revealed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection in granting bail, but stringent conditions may be imposed. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be granted on stringent conditions. Hence the following order is passed: Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned on the following conditions: B.A. No.3112 of 2010 3 i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday, between 10 A.M. and 1 P.M., until further orders. ii) Petitioner shall not enter the limits of the police station within which the incident happened, except for compliance of condition no.1, until further orders. iii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witnesses or tamper with the evidence. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln