IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3112 of 2009()
1. MADHUSOODANAN, AGED 40 YEARS
... Petitioner
2. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS
3. SUBHASH, AGED 35 YEARS
4. GEETHA KUMARI, AGED 35 YEARS
5. MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 35 YEARS
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :23/07/2009
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 3112 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009
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 5in Crime No.295/2009 of Nooranadu Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 341, 323, 324, 509 and 308 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. It is submitted that Crime No.296/2009 is a counter
case, in which the 4th petitioner Geethakumari is the defacto
complainant.
4. The prosecution case in Crime No.295/2009 is the
following: On 30/05/2009, the defacto complainant and his wife
were coming from hospital on a motor bike. The wife of the
defacto complainant was pregnant. They saw a fight going on
between the petitioners and Leela, the land lady of the defacto
complainant. The defacto complainant and his wife alighted from
the motor bike. At that time, they were attacked by the
petitioners. The defacto complainant sustained injuries.
5. The case of the petitioners is that the 4th petitioner
B.A. No. 3112/2009
Page numbers
purchased a property utilising the money which she received as
compensation on account of the death of her husband while
working abroad. One Manoj, son of Leela, claiming that he had
entered into an agreement for sale with the owner of the
property at an earlier point of time, filed a suit for specific
performance, in which the 4th petitioner is also a party. That suit
is pending. The records would also reveal that there was a Visa
transaction between the defacto complainant and the first
petitioner.
6. Heard Smt. Sangeetha Lakshman, the learned counsel
appearing for the deacto complainant as well.
7. I have perused the Case Diary. The wound certificate
would disclose that the injuries are not very serious.
8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other
circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be
granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the
event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the
police station shall release them on bail for a period of one
month on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two
B.A. No. 3112/2009
Page numbers
solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:
A) The petitioners shall report before the
investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M.
on all Mondays, 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 try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence.
D) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or
indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.
E) On the expiry of the period mentioned above or
even before that period, the petitioners shall
surrender before the Magistrate concerned and
seek regular bail.
F) In case of breach of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be
cancelled.
The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated
above.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm