IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4385 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.314/2009 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: ---------------------------------------------- 1. VIJESH, S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 25, MANNANPARAMBATH HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O., PERUVAYAL AMSOM- PERINGALAM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. ANAS, S/O.HUSSAIN.N.P., AGED 21, NELLICKAPARAMBIL, THAYAKKODE AMSOM DESOM, MANASSERY P.O., MUKKAM VIA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS.MR.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM), MR.PRASANTH M.P. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4385 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 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.314 of 2009 of Kunnamangalam Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under section 392 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons intercepted a bus, blocked the same and took away the key of the bus and the passengers could not continue their journey. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a dispute between the employees of two buses and the dispute has been settled. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution case is not based on the dispute between the employees or owners of the buses. It is also stated that the 1st accused is involved in several criminal cases registered by the BA 4385/09 2 Kunnamangalam Police Station and he is not entitled to any discretionary relief. 4. I have gone through th case diary. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the 2nd petitioner. However, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner (1st accused). 5. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the 2nd petitioner (2nd accused) the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for Rs25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The 2nd petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The 2nd petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The 2nd petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) In case of breach of any of the conditions BA 4385/09 3 mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. The prayer for anticipatory bail made by the first petitioner is rejected. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln