IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 2244 of 2008()
1. SUDHEESH BABU, PAYATTUVILA VEEDU,
... Petitioner
2. JAYAKUMAR, USHA MANDIRAM, KURIYODE,
3. S.S.SHANMUGHA SHINE,
4. G.SADEESAN PILLAI, GOVINDA VILASAM,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJU.S.A
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :10/04/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.2244 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 to
4. They are employees in a K.S.R.T.C bus depot. The crux of the
allegations is that a group of persons had come to the K.S.R.T.C
bus station alleging that a K.S.R.T.C bus was involved in an
accident. There was an incident which followed at the K.S.R.T.C
bus depot. Allegations and counter allegations are being raised by
the rival contestants as to what actually transpired in that
incident. In this crime it is alleged that the petitioners who are
employees of the K.S.R.T.C had attacked the others resulting in
injuries, including fracture of a toe. In the counter case, it is
alleged that local persons had attacked the K.S.R.T.C employees
and had thereby committed the offence punishable, inter alia,
under Section 332 I.P.C. Investigation into both crimes are
pending. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are not the aggressors and are really the victims of
aggression. At any rate, it cannot be assumed that there was any
intentional assault on the victim. The fracture of the toe allegedly
B.A.No.2244 of 2008 2
suffered by the victim cannot be said to be one intentionally
inflicted with any dangerous weapon by anyone of the accused.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the
application for anticipatory bail and I am satisfied, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, to which I have already made brief
reference, that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail.
4. In the result, this Bail Application is, allowed. The
following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned
Magistrate at 11 a.m on 17.04.2008. They shall be enlarged on
regular bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;
ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and
3 p.m on 18.04.08 and 19.04.08. During this period, the
Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the
petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper
conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioners shall
make themselves available for interrogation before the
Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays
B.A.No.2244 of 2008 3
and Fridays for a period of one month and subsequently as and
when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so;
iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall
thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to
arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law
as if those directions were not issued at all;
iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender
on 17.04.08 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be
released from custody on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) without any sureties
undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 17.04.08.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-