IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2008 / 9TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7990 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.3194/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II,THAMARASSERY CRIME NO.452/2008 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIOENRS : -------------------- 1. ASMABI, E/O. BEERANKOYA, W/O. SHAMSUDHEEN, PALANGODAN HOUSE, KUMARANALLUR AMSOM. 2. SHAMSUDHEEN @ KUMMINI, SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O. ABDU, POOLAKKATHODI HOUSE, KODIYATHUR AMSOM. BY ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, MUKKOM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY P.P. SRI C.M.KAMMAPPU. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7990 of 2008. ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 30th December, 2008. ORDER Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in crime No.452/2008 of Mukkom police station are the petitioners herein. 2. The prosecution case is that the 2nd petitioner raped the de facto complainant on several time and took her to different places along with the first accused and thereby made facilities and helped Accused Nos.3 to 9 to commit rape on the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is a false one and the same is fabricated at the instance of first husband of the the Ist accused -first petitioner. The de facto complainant is the daughter of the first petitioner and her former husband. It is also the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner now married the second petitioner and they are living happily with her child. It is also their case that they are looking after the de facto complainant. But the former husband of the first petitioner(A1) is inimical towards the petitioners and at his instance the case is foisted. It is stated that the other accused were already granted bail. According to the petitioners, they were arrested on 8.10.2008 and more than 84 days are over and therefore, prays that bail may be granted to them. B.A.7990/08 -:2:- 3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the application and submitted that there is no possibility to conclude the investigation within the statutory period. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances involved in the case and also the fact that the other accused were already released on bail, and the petitioners are still continuing in custody, right from 8.10.2008, bail can be granted to them by imposing stringent conditions. In the result, bail is granted to the petitioners on the following conditions: The petitioners are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.50,000 /- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.F.C.M- II, Thamarassery and subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays. 2. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the police till the filing of the final report. 3. The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the B.A.7990/08 -:3:- prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. 4. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. 5. The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of Mukkom Police Station. If the petitioners commit breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled. This application is allowed as above. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. kvm/- B.A.7990/08 -:4:- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- V.K.MOHANAN, J. B.A.7990/08 -:5:- No.... Judgment/Order Dated: