IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5973 of 2007()
1. BIJU, S/O.VIJAYAN, NEELIKULANGARA
... Petitioner
2. VINOD, S/O.JANAKI, PARAKANDATHIL
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP MOHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/10/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 5973 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 3
and 1 respectively. Altogether there are six accused. The second
accused has already been arrested and later enlarged on bail. The
petitioners face allegations in a crime registered under Sections 452
and 308 I.P.C. The defacto complainant was allegedly attacked by a
group of miscreants. The alleged incident had taken place on the
night of 4.9.2007. The defacto complainant is a taxi driver. In the
F.I.R. no person is named. Subsequently the petitioners have been
brought on the array of accused. Investigation is in progress. The
petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
allegations cannot inspire confidence at all. The averments in the
F.I. statement lodged by the defacto complainant knocks the bottom
out of the present allegations raised against the petitioners. In the F.I.
B.A.No. 5973 of 2007
2
statement the allegation is only that four persons have committed the
offence. Now it is alleged that six persons are involved in the offence. In
the F.I. statement the victim/defacto complainant states in a forthright
manner that he was not able to name the accused persons. On the
immediate following day he narrates the names of the alleged miscreants.
In the F.I. statement there is no specific motive alleged. But when the
victim was interrogated later the theory advanced was that the taxi driver
was called for to go for a criminal misadventure (koolithallu). The defacto
complainant did not agree for that and that was the motive it is alleged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that reading
between the lines it must be easy for any prudent mind to note that the
allegations require very careful and cautious scrutiny.
4. The learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application. I shall
not venture to embark on a discussion on the acceptability of the allegations
raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am
persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the petitioners deserve to be
granted directions under Section 438 cr.P.C.
5. In the result:
(1) This application is allowed.
B.A.No. 5973 of 2007
3
(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
(a) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on
10.10.2007 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners
on regular bail on condition that they execute bonds 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.
(b) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation
before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 11.10.07
and 12.10.2007 and thereafter they shall appear 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.
(d) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as
directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 10.10.07 and the
police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioners and deal with
them in accordance with law.
(b) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on
10.10.2007 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released on bail on
B.A.No. 5973 of 2007
4
their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each without any surety undertaking
to appear before the learned Magistrate on 10.10.2007.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm