IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 636 of 2010 CRIME NO.16 OF 2010 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. PRASANNAN.V, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 39 YEARS, OZHAKROM, PO, MORAZHA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. BIJU K, S/O.VINODHARAN, AGED 30 YEARS, THALUVIL HOUSE, PRASSINIKADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. MURALEEDHARAN K.V, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 39 YEARS, OZHAKROM, PO. MORAZHA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 636 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010 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 to 3 in Crime No.16 of 2010 of Kannapuram Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 141, 147, 148, 323 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 11.1.2010, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant with sticks. He sustained grievous injuries. Fracture was sustained on both the bones of his left forearm. He was admitted in the hospital on 11.1.2010 and he was discharged on 22.1.2010. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the B.A. NO. 636 OF 2010 :: 2 :: second petitioner sustained serious injuries as a result of the assault made by the de facto complainant and another. Annexures AI and AII are relied on to substantiate that contention. Annexure AI shows that the second petitioner was examined by the doctor at 1.15 AM on 12.1.2010. Annexure AI would also indicate that his case was that he was attacked by the de facto complainant at 8.30 PM on 11.1.2010. Annexure AII shows that the second petitioner was assaulted on 12.1.2010. 5. I have perused the case diary in Crime No.16 of 2010. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant, I am of the view that petitioners 1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 2) are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the case of the third petitioner stands on a different footing. The grievous injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are not attributable to any of the overt acts committed by the third petitioner. Therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the third petitioner (third accused – Muraleedharan K.V.). B.A. NO. 636 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 7. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the third petitioner (accused No.3), the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The third petitioner (third accused) shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The third petitioner (third accused) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The third petitioner (third accused) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The third petitioner (third accused) 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 dismissed in so far as it relates to petitioners 1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 2) and it is allowed in the B.A. NO. 636 OF 2010 :: 4 :: manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to petitioner No.3 (accused No.3). (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/