IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1038 of 2010 CRIME NO.1 OF 2010 OF RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.5: ------------------------------ JENATE JAMES, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.JAMES, THOMBUMANIL HOUSE, VAIKKOM,RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SRI.JACOB CHACKO RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE RANNY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010, ALONG WITH BA NO.1043 AND 1053 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NOS.1038, 1043 & 1053 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010 O R D E R All these three applications for bail are under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. B.A.No.1038 of 2010 is filed by accused No.5, B.A.No.1043 of 2010 is filed by accused No.4 and B.A.No.1053 of 2010 is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.1 of 2010 of Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 333 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: During the midnight of 31.12.2009 and the early hours of 1.1.2010, several people were celebrating new year. The Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty, heard some persons uttering words in obscene language. He asked those people to stop the same. They did not obey. The Sub Inspector of Police informed the Circle Inspector of B.A. NOS.1038, 1043 &1053 OF 2010 :: 2 :: Police. The Circle Inspector of Police came to the spot. Accused Nos.1 and 2 against whom the Circle Inspector had booked a case on an earlier occasion, used that opportunity and attacked the Circle Inspector of Police. They shouted to kill him and the other accused obeyed the call made by accused Nos.1 and 2. They pelted stones against the police personnel who sustained injuries. The Circle Inspector of Police, who was injured, was taken to Marthomma Hospital. After giving first aid, he was taken to Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. 4. The Circle Inspector of Police was in an unconscious state in Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital for six days and he was in the Intensive Care Unit for a period of 9 days. He was discharged from the hospital only on 13.1.2009. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even now he has not resumed to his duties. The injuries noted by the Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital on the Circle Inspector of Police are the following: “(i) Lacerated wound sutured of length 5 cm. over right fronto temporal region with contusion (ii) Left frontal EDH and right tempero parietal EDH (iii) Pneumocephalus (iv) Fracture involving left temporal bone extending to right temporal bone B.A. NOS.1038, 1043 &1053 OF 2010 :: 3 :: (v) Fracture undisplaced fracture of left zygomatic arch. (vi) Fracture lateral wall of right orbit.” 5. Accused Nos.4 and 5 approached this Court for bail on two occasions and their applications were dismissed by the orders dated 20.1.2010 and 5.2.2010. Accused Nos.2 and 3 along with accused No.1 filed B.A.No.352 of 2010, which was disposed of as per the order dated 4.2.2010 and bail was granted to accused No.1 and prayer for bail made by accused Nos.2 and 3 was rejected. 6. The Bail Applications were vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that the Circle Inspector of Police had sustained grievous injuries and he could not attend to the duties for several days. It is submitted that even though he was discharged from the hospital, he is still continuing on medical leave. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioners are released on bail, they would indulge in criminal activities and they would also intimidate or influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. B.A. NOS.1038, 1043 &1053 OF 2010 :: 4 :: 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that many of the witnesses are police officers themselves and, therefore, the apprehension voiced by the learned Public Prosecutor that the witnesses would be influenced by the accused is without substance. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners are prepared to abide by any condition that may be imposed by the Court for grant of bail. They also undertake not to indulge in any criminal activities or prejudicial activities. This undertaking is recorded. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioners. 9. The petitioners 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 -I, Ranni, subject to the following conditions: B.A. NOS.1038, 1043 &1053 OF 2010 :: 5 :: a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla, between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays and Thursdays, 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 enter into the territorial limits of Ranni Police Circle for a period of two months; d) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class -I, Ranni, within a period of one week. If any of the petitioners does not hold an Indian Passport, an affidavit sworn to by him shall be filed before the learned Magistrate within one week; e) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; f) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; g) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Applications are allowed as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/