IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3461 of 2009 CRIME NO.770 OF 2009 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ T.K.KUNHAPPAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN THEVAR THARA, EDAVANAKKADU P.O., VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.BALAN RESPONDENT:COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3461 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.770 of 2009 of North Paravur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 19.8.2009, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are incorrect and that the case is foisted against the petitioner when he was about to be promoted. It is also stated that the case was initiated at a time when the petitioner was on special duty at Sabarimala. According to the petitioner, assignment of special duty to the petitioner at Sabarimala was not liked by some of his colleagues and that was the reason why a case was B.A. NO.3461 OF 2009 :: 2 :: foisted against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the innocence of the petitioner would be revealed if the police questions him. The petitioner offered to appear before the investigating officer on 24/8/2009 and 25/8/2009 at 9 AM so that he could be questioned on those days by the investigating officer. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that such a course can be adopted. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 24th and 25th August, 2009. Post on 27.8.2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested till 27.8.2009.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer as directed in the order dated 19.8.2009. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this statement is correct. B.A. NO.3461 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, 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.15,000/- 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) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The 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 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/