IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4568 of 2007()
1. SOBHANAN.G.,
... Petitioner
2. T.SUDHAKARAN, PRAMOD BHAVAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :01/08/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 4568 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1
and 3. Altogether there are 14 accused persons. The only non-
bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is the one punishable
under Section 332 I.P.C. That offence, which was bailable till
23.6.2006, has now been made non-bailable after the amendment
w.e.f. 23.6.06. The incident in this case took place on 27.6.2007.
Regarding that incident allegations and counter allegations are traded
by the rival contestants. In the present crime it is alleged that the
second accused, whom the Excise officials wanted to be arrested,
could not be arrested as a group of persons, including the petitioner,
interfered with the official duty of the Excise officials and deterred
them from discharging their official duty. It is alleged that hurt was
caused to the Excise officials by the accused persons. This crime is
registered as Crime 229 of 2007. On the basis of the complaint given
by the first petitioner/first accused the police have registered Crime
230 of 2007 against the Excise officials, wherein, it is alleged that the
B.A.No. 4568 of 2007
2
Excise officials not in uniform indulged in culpable conduct against the
first accused. Both cases are under investigation.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations
raised are totally false. The police are trying to cover up their fault and
shield themselves. At any rate, there is no necessity to insist on arrest and
detention of the petitioners. They may be saved of the undeserved trauma
of arrest and detention, submits the counsel.
3. The learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application. He only
submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed, which shall ensure the
interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, to which brief reference
has already been made above, I am satisfied that the petitioners can be
granted anticipatory bail subject to appropriate conditions.
5. In the result:
(1) This application is allowed.
(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
(a) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on
8.8.2007 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners on
regular bail on condition that the petitioners execute bonds for
B.A.No. 4568 of 2007
3
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.
(b) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation
before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 9.8.2007
and 10.8.07 and thereafter on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and
12 noon for a period of two months and subsequently as and when directed
by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.
(c) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as
directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 8.8.07 and the
police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioners and deal with
them in accordance with law.
(d) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 8.8.2007
as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released from custody on
their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- without any surety undertaking to
appear before the learned Magistrate on 8.8.2007.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm