IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6179 of 2009 CRIME NO.233 OF 2009 OF KUMARAKOM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- BENNY V.PUNNOOSE, VAITHARAMATTOM, KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.233 OF 2009 OF KUMARAKOM POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6179 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 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 first accused in Crime No.233 of 2009 of Kumarakom Police Station, Kottayam District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 3.3.2010, the following order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, 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 8.3.2010 and 9.3.2010. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. B.A. NO. 6179 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Post on 15.3.2010. It is made clear that the direction to appear before the investigating officer is being issued only on the basis of the offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if such an appearance is made, the petitioner would be able to convince the investigating officer that he is innocent. In other words, it is made clear that the appearance before the investigating officer as above would not enable the petitioner to claim anticipatory bail as a matter or right. The undertaking not to arrest the petitioner will continue to be in force till the next posting date.” 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 3.3.2010 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 3.3.2010 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 B.A. NO. 6179 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 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 report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; 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/