IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2185 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 130/2010 OF KOODAL POLICE STATION .................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- K.SAJI, S/O.LATE KOCHU KUNJU, VAISHANAVAM,NELLIPALLY.P.O,PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY RESPONDENTS : --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KOODAL POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 2185 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 304 and 308 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, on 27.03.2010, a mini lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver(accused no.1) and six persons sustained injuries and they succumbed to the injuries. Nine other persons were also injured. The injured and the deceased were travelling in the mini lorry and they are employed by petitioner(accused no. 2), who is a PWD contractor. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the persons, who sustained injuries in the incident were not engaged by petitioner. Petitioner is a PWD contractor, who entrusted the work with the sub-contractor. The incident happened while the workers of the sub contractor were taken from one placed to the other, at the instance of the sub-contractor. Petitioner has nothing to do with the incident, except that the main work was undertaken by petitioner. Petitioner requested for an opportunity B.A. No. 2185 / 2010 2 to explain his innocence before the investigating officer. As per the direction of this court, he appeared before the investigating officer and he was questioned. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner appeared before the investigating officer and he was interrogated. Petitioner may be directed to report before the investigating officer as and when directed and subject to this, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail on the conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. Petitioner shall, in the event of his arrest be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: i). Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. B.A. No. 2185 / 2010 3 ii). Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with the evidence. 2. This order will be in force only for a period of 25 days from today. In the meantime, whether petitioner is arrested or not he shall seek regular bail from the court concerned in accordance with law. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln