IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 49 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CRMP.3521/2009 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO.812/2009 OF PARIPALLY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3 -------------------- 1. SATHEESAN,AGED 24,S/O.REGHUNATHAN, PANIYIL VEEDU,ULIYANADU CHERRY, CHIRAKKARA VILLAGE,KOLLAM. 2. LATHEESAN @ RATHEESAN,AGED 30, S/O.REGHUNATHANAM,PANIYIL VEEDU, ULIYANADU CHERRY,CHIRAKKARA VILLAGE,KOLLAM. 3. RAMESAN,AGED 28, S/O.REGHUNATHANAM,PANIYIL VEEDU, ULIYANADU CHERRY,CHIRAKKARA VILLAGE,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE S.I OF POLICE,PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 49 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 9th 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. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.812/2009 of Paripally Police Station, Kollam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b), 341, 427, 323, 324, 326 and 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 5/12/2009 at 11.30 P.M., the accused persons trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked her. The de facto complainant sustained fracture of nasal bone. It is also alleged that accused persons had broken the window panes of the house of the de facto complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case was foisted against the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that the de facto complaint is the aunt of the petitioners. It is stated that the husband of the de facto complainant, Radhakrishnan is the brother of Sudarmani, the mother of the petitioners. The father of Sudarmani and B.A. No. 49 /2010 2 Radhakrishnan is one Raghavan. It is stated that Raghavan has filed a complaint before the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The petitioners and their mother, Sudarmani supported Raghavan in that proceeding. The de facto complainant and her husband are opposing the claim of Raghavan. According to the petitioners, the present case was foisted on account of that rivalry. 5. 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 not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to accused No.1 (first petitioner). I am of the view that the first petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. However, in so far as the case of accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Petitioners 2 and 3) is concerned, it stands on a different footing. The overt acts alleged against petitioners 2 and 3 are not attributable to the grievous hurt caused to the de facto complainant. In these circumstances and also taking into account other circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos. 2 and 3). There will be a direction that in the event of the B.A. No. 49 /2010 3 arrest of petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos. 2 and 3), the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.10,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) Petitioners 2 and 3 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) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) Petitioners 2 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. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the first Petitioner (accused No.1) and it is allowed in the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.2 and 3). K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm