IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 49 of 2009 CRIME NO.695 OF 2008 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- ABDUL RAHIM @ BAVA, S/O.KADHER, PARAKATTIL HOUSE, PULASSERY, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 49 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 18.11.2009, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.695 of 2008 of Pattambi Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498A, 341 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are respectively the mother, brother and sisters of the petitioner. As per the order dated 20.12.2008, the learned Sessions Judge granted Anticipatory Bail in favour of accused Nos.2 to 5. By the same order Anticipatory Bail was refused to the petitioner (Accused No.1). 4. When the Bail Application came up for B.A. NO. 49 OF 2009 :: 2 :: hearing on 28.01.2009, the following order was passed: “On hearing both sides, I find that there is an appropriate matter to be settled at the Lok Adalat. Both sides agree that the case can be referred to the Lok Adalat at High Court. Therefore, this case is referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement. The petitioner and de facto complainant are directed to appear before the Lok Adalat at High Court on 04.02.2009. Learned Public Prosecutor undertakes that he will give instructions to the de facto complainant to appear before the Lok Adalat on that day. He also undertakes that petitioner will not be arrested till the disposal of the application. This undertaking is recorded. Await report.” The matter went before the Adalat. The case was taken up on several dates. The petitioner was present all throughout. However, the defacto complainant did not turn up. The Lok Adalath was therefore constrained to send back the records to court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 24th and 25th November, 2009. B.A. NO. 49 OF 2009 :: 3 :: Post on 02.12.2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.695/2008 of Pattambi Police Station.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 18.11.2009 has been complied with by the petitioner. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 18.11.2009 has been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B.A. NO. 49 OF 2009 :: 4 :: c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioner 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 is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/