IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6132 of 2009 CRIME NO.835 OF 2009 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NSO.1 & 2: --------------------------------------- 1. PRADEEP, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU CHERUKKAN, CHOORAPPETTIYIL HOUSE, ELAVUMTHITTA MURI, MEZHUVELI VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY THALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. PRANAV.C.P., AGED 14 YEARS, S/O.PRADEEP, CHOORAPPETTIYIL HOUSE, ELAVUMTHITTA MURI, MEZHUVELI VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY THALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6132 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.835 of 2009 of Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 452, 294(b), 324 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 26.11.2009, the following order was passed: “When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 26.10.2009, the following order was passed: “The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and the de facto complainant are neighbours and relatives and the petitioners would like to settle the matter. B.A. NO. 6132 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Post after two weeks. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with crime No.835 of 2009 of Pandalam Police Station till then.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Member of the Legislative Assembly, Pathanamthitta called both parties and the matter was settled between the parties. 3. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 4.12.2009. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. Post on 9.12.2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.835 of 2009 of Pandalam Police Station.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as B.A. NO. 6132 OF 2009 :: 3 :: well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 26.11.2009 has been complied with by the petitioners. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor that the parties have settled the matter. In view of the settlement, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the police do not intend to arrest the petitioners. This submission is recorded and the Bail Application is accordingly closed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/