IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3206 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.321/2007 OF ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ----------------------------------- SHAJI THOMAS, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT MANOOCHERILAYA MANNAPPARAMBIL, KADAPPATTOOR P.O., PALA. BY ADV. SMT.P.DEEPTHI RESPONDENT: STATE ------------------ THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3206 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 ORDER This petition is under Section 438 Crl.P.C. 2. Petitioner is the second accused in the crime. The alleged offences are under Sections 450, 354, 363 and 395 read with Section 34 of IPC. The crime is an out shoot of property deal. The property of the husband is sole property behind the back of the wife and when the wife came to the house from U.S.A. and started residing there without knowing about the transfer, she and her mother were forcibly removed from the house in a vehicle by the husband and all the accused including the petitioner. The valuables were also taken away and the defacto complainant and her mother were manhandled. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the very outset pointed out that the petitioner is only a broker in the property deal. He has no involvement in the offence. But a long standing dispute is in existence between the husband and wife. Since he is the broker, he is also dragged to the array of BA 3206/2008 2 accused. According to him, no injury is caused by him and no assault is made by him against 78 year old mother of the defacto complainant as alleged. He pointed out that the body-note at the foot of the First Information Statement reveals that there is only a complaint of pain and no external injury. 4. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that another accused who is similarly placed who is the purchaser of the property also allegedly assaulted the injured, but he was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. In the above circumstances, petitioner may also be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. Learned public prosecutor opposed this application and stated that the petitioner is required for the recovery of the articles. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the complaint given by the defacto complainant, gold ornaments which were allegedly taken away from her are in the custody of her husband himself and hence, the petitioner may not required for recovery. It is also submitted that there is only a vague allegation that the petitioner is required for recovery. BA 3206/2008 3 Learned public prosecutor conceded that the details are not available. In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason why the petitioner should be differently treated. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the other accused except the purchaser were all remanded to custody and were granted regular bail and not anticipatory bail. Considering this submission also, I find that in the light of order in B.A.No.2875/08 passed in favour of the purchaser, it may not be fair and proper to reject the request for anticipatory bail by the petitioner who is a broker. 6. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall be released by the arresting officer in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with this case on the petitioner executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: (1) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating officer between 4 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays. BA 3206/2008 4 (2) Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating officer. (3) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence in support of the prosecution. (4) In case any complaint is received regarding breach of the third condition by petitioner, bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl