IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 272 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO.907/2008 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3 : ----------------------------------------- 1. SHANID M.K., S/O. MOOSAKUTTY, AGED 31 YEARS, M.K. HOUSE, GOODSHED ROAD, THALASSERY. 2. MAYAN E, S/O. KUNHAMMED, AGED 39 YEARS, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, KUTHUPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE : ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALASSERY POLICE STATION,. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.272 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326 read with 149 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioners formed into an unlawful assembly and committed the various offences by wrongfully restraining the defacto complainant and assaulting him with stick. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant came to the hotel in the mid night at 12.30 a.m. on 25.12.2008 and assaulted the watchman asking him to provide a parcel and the watchman explained that it was not possible at that time and he refused to open the door. A crime was also registered on the basis of the statement given by the watchman as crime No.916/08. The defacto complainant had come earlier also to the hotel and assaulted employees in the hotel on 10.12.2008 and on the statement given by one of the employees, crime No.872/08 was registered against the defacto complainant. Petitioners have B.A.No.272 of 2009 2 not committed any offence and they may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the crime was registered under Section 326 I.P.C., since an allegation was made that the defacto complainant sustained a fracture to his leg. But, he fairly conceded that as per the wound certificate, no fracture is seen sustained. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I find that Section 326 I.P.C. is not deleted so far and if petitioners surrender or are arrested, it is likely that they may be remanded and they will suffer irreparable injury and loss. Taking into account the facts stated by learned counsel for petitioners and the circumstances under which the crime was registered, the pendency of the 2 crimes etc. it is only fit and proper that anticipatory bail is granted to petitioners. Hence, the following order is passed. Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer within 4 days from today and they shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest on their executing bond for B.A.No.272 of 2009 3 Rs.10,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions : i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac