IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6517 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.497 OF 2011 OF AROOR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DT. PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1,2 ------------------------------- 1. BABU A.T., ATHITHARA VEEDU, ERAMALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 2. CHANDRAN, VALIYAKALAM, PANAMBUKADU, VALLARPADAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY P.P.SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.6517 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.497 of 2011 of Aroor Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341 and 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 23rd August, 2011, the following order was passed: “3. The defacto complainant and the first accused are brothers. There are disputes between them in respect of property. The defacto complainant and the first accused were residing in the same house. The second accused is the father-in-law of the first accused. 4. The prosecution case is that on B.A.No.6517 OF 2011 2 31.7.2011 at 7 P.M, the defacto complainant was attacked by the second accused with a stick, which resulted in the fracture of the little finger of the defacto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first accused was attacked by the defacto complainant and the first accused lost one tooth and three teeth were loosened. The incident happened as a result of the same. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Crime No.498 of 2011 was registered, in which the defacto complainant is the accused. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioners should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer on 26th and 27th August, 2011. 6. Post on 2nd September, 2011. 7. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.497 of 2011 of Aroor Police Station, till 5th September, 2011. 8. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the direction in the order dated 23rd August, B.A.No.6517 OF 2011 3 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners. 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 23rd August, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M on every Monday, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. B.A.No.6517 OF 2011 4 e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. f) The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms