IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3023 of 2009 CRIME NO.422 OF 2009 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS:: ACCUSED: -------------------- 1. PRASANNA, W/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 42 YEARS, UTHARA BHAVANAM, MULAKKUZHA P/W-V, KARAKKAD MURI, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE. 2. CHANDRAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, UTHARA BHAVANAM, MULAKKUZHA P/W-V, KARAKKAD MURI, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE. 3. AMMINI, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.THANKAPPAN, PALATHADATHIL THODUKAYIL, PUZHIKKADU MURI, KURAMPALA VILLAGE. 4. MANIKUTTAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, KALIYILAZHIKATHU VEED, VILAKKUDI PANCHAYAT, VILAKKUDI VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 5. KUMARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, VINEETHA BHAVANAM, KADASSERI MURI, PURAVATHUR P/W-1, PUNNALA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 6. SURENDRAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.VASU, SAUMYA BHAVANAM, MALLAPPALLYKOTTA, PARAYANTHALIL P/W-III, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY. 7. ANU, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, ASOKA VILASAM, CHEMPOMAN DESAM, PIRAVANTHUR P/W-V, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 8. UNNI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.VASU, KALLUZHATHIL VEEDU, MADHUMALA BHAGAM, ELANTHOOR P/W-III, ELANTHOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 9. SURENDRAN, AGED 32, S/O.K.C.SURENDRAN, KUZHIPPARAMBIL VEED, KAUKAPPALAM SREENIPURAM COLONY, ERUMELY P/W-XVIII, ERUMELY THEKK VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 10. SASI, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUCHERUKKAN, SASI VILASAM, EROOR P/W-IX, EROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 11. BABY, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, PUTHEN VEED, VENJARAMUDU PADAYANIKKONAM PADINJATTUMKARA, PULLAMPARA -P/W-VI, MANICKAL VILLAGE, ATTINGAL TALUK. 12. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.NADESAN, KOIPPALLITHARAYIL, BHARANICKAVU P/W-1, NADUVILE MURI, BHARANICKAVU PANCHAYAT, MAVELIKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3023 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th June, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.422 of 2009 of Chengannur Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Sections 143, 147, 149, 353, 427, 341, 342 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons attacked a police constable, poured kerosene on him and attempted to commit murder by lighting fire. The petitioners have a different story. They say that there was a dispute between one Satyasheelan and petitioners 1 to 3 regarding the boundary of their property; that the first petitioner had to approach this Court in two Writ Petitions for police protection and that Annexure-1 order was passed by this Court on 15.3.2007, directing the police to maintain law and order and to protect the lives of both parties. It is also stated that on 20.5.2009, the Taluk Surveyor measured the property and the boundaries of the properties were fixed. According to the petitioners, when they attempted to put up boundary in the property of B.A. NO. 3023 OF 2009 :: 2 :: petitioners 1 to 3, the police personnel attacked them. The petitioners, in order to protect themselves, took shelter in the house of the first petitioner. The police personnel entered into the house of the first petitioner by force and assaulted the petitioners. At that time, the first petitioner put kerosene on her body. The de facto complainant (the Head Constable) tried to prevent the same and in that process, kerosene fell on his uniform also. According to the petitioners, no such incident as stated by the prosecution happened. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation of the case is not over and, if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of the witnesses being influenced or intimidated. It is pointed out that petitioners 4 to 12 are not persons belonging to the place and they are not interested in the property of either party. It is also stated that they are not related to petitioners 1 to 3. In answer, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners 4 to 12 are activists of Sadhujana Vimochana Samyuktha Vedi and that they came there to help petitioners 1 to 3. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioners 2 and 4 to 12 at this stage. However, petitioners 1 and 3, being ladies, could be released on bail. If B.A. NO. 3023 OF 2009 :: 3 :: bail is granted to petitioners 2 and 4 to 12 at this stage, there is likelihood of the witnesses being influenced or intimidated and those accused persons making themselves scarce. 5. Petitioners 1 and 3 shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chengannur, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioners 1 and 3 shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) Petitioners 1 and 3 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) Petitioners 1 and 3 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) Petitioners 1 and 3 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 as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/