IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5849 of 2009 CRIME NO.958 OF 2006 OF DINDIGAL NORTH TOWN POLICE STATION, TAMIL NADU. PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: -------------------- 1. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.PERU, RAJADHANI JEWELLERS, KUTTIPURAM. 2. NISAR, S/O.BAVA HAJI, STAR JEWELLERS, KUTTIPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DINDIGAL NORTH TOWN POLICE STATION, DINDIGAL, TAMIL NADU. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 5849 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners apprehend arrest by the Dindigal North Town Police, Tamil Nadu, on an accusation of having committed non-bailable offence. The petitioners apprehend that they might be implicated as accused in a crime registered under Sections 454, 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and that the Police might allege that the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In Madhusoodan v. Supdt. of Police (1992 (2) KLT 83), it was held that the Court, within whose jurisdiction the person apprehends arrest, has power to grant an order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a condition to appear before the appropriate court having jurisdiction, even though the alleged offence was committed at a place within the territorial limits of another High Court. A learned single Judge of this Court has also taken the same view in C.I.Mathew v. Government of India (1984 KLT 942). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bail Application is disposed of as follows: B.A. NO. 5849 OF 2009 :: 2 :: In case the petitioners are arrested in connection with Crime No.958 of 2006 of Dindigal North Town Police Station, Tamil Nadu, the petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like sum. In the event of such arrest, the petitioners shall appear before the Court having jurisdiction in respect of the crime within a period of one month thereafter. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/