IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1656 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 55/08 OF MUHAMMA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ---------------------------- 1. RAMESH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHAN, VARAKADU VELI, WARD NO.1, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. PURUSHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, DO. 3. KAILASAN, AGED 35, S/O.KESAVAN, VARAKADU VELI, MANNANCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.E.RAFEEK RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1656 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 to 3. There are three injured persons. About an incident which took place on 28.2.2008, allegations and counter allegations have been raised. In this crime against the petitioners allegations are raised under Sections 324 and 307 I.P.C. inter alia. In the crime registered against the defacto complainant in this crime, allegations are raised under Section 324 I.P.C. Sword stick is the weapon allegedly used by the defacto complainant, whereas sickle is the weapon allegedly used by the petitioners. The first accused is even now undergoing treatment in the hospital, it is submitted. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and that they are really the victims of aggression and not the aggressors. Inclusion of the allegation under Section 307 I.P.C. against the petitioners is most B.A.No. 1656 of 2008 2 unjustified and reflects only the influence which the defacto complainant is able to exercise over the police. It is prayed that the petitioners may now be granted anticipatory bail. They shall co- operate with the investigators, it is submitted. 3. The learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application, but submits that appropriate and strict conditions may be imposed. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners, subject to appropriate conditions. 5. In the result: (1) This application is allowed. (2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (a) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 2.4.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners on regular bail on condition that they execute bonds for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. B.A.No. 1656 of 2008 3 (b) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 3.4.2008 and 4.4.2008 and thereafter on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. And 12 noon for a period of one month and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (d) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 2.4.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law. (e) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 2.4.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released on bail on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/- without any surety undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 2.4.2008. (R. BASANT) Judge tm