IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5912 of 2007()
1. A. ISMAIL,S/O.ALAYAKUNCHU,CHARUVILAVEEDU
... Petitioner
2. A.SHAMSUDEEN,S/O. ALIYAR KUNJU,
3. S.SAFARULLA, S/O. SHEHABUDEEN,
4. S.SAMEER,S/O.SHAMSUDEEN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. NAHARSHA M, S/O. MOHAMMED HANEEFA,
For Petitioner :SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :08/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.5912 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face allegations
in a crime registered, inter alia, for the offences punishable under
Section 452 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that on account of
prior animosity arising from disputes regarding a pathway, the
petitioners had trespassed into the residential building of the defacto
complainant and indulged in wanton acts of violence and mischief.
Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent
arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are absolutely innocent. Totally false allegations are raised
against the petitioners because of the prior animosity. In fact, there
was an earlier crime registered as Crime No.269 of 2007. As a
retaliation against that crime, false allegations are raised presently in
this crime. The petitioners are innocent. They may be saved of the
undeserved trauma of arrest and detention, submits the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the
application. He submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed in
B.A.No.5912 of 2007 2
the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation. In the
counter case, the investigation is already complete. It has been
referred as false.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied
that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to
appropriate conditions which shall adequately safeguard the interests
of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation.
5. In the result, the 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 15.10.2007. 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 16.10.07 and 17.10.07 and thereafter between 10 a.m and 12
noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of one month.
Subsequently the petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by
the Investigating Officer in writing to do so;
B.A.No.5912 of 2007 3
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 15.10.07 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 15.10.07.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-