IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6496 of 2007()
1. A.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. A.KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, AGED 37 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :31/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.6496 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face allegations in a
crime registered under Sections 447, 427 and 379 r/w 34 I.P.C. The
petitioners are brothers. The allegation is that they stealthily removed
a door frame from a building, construction of which is going on. The
construction is done by the defacto complainant on behalf of his
principal. There is a dispute between the principal and the 1st accused
about the rights in respect of the property in which the construction is
going on. The crux of the allegation is that the petitioners had
stealthily removed the door frame at about 10.45 p.m on 13.10.07.
Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent
arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are absolutely innocent. Because of the civil dispute and
because of the fact that the petitioners had gone to court to get the
further construction stayed, as a retaliation and counter blast,
allegations are being raised against the petitioners. The petitioners
are respectable persons and the allegation of theft is resorted to only
to bring them to ridicule. The petitioners are prepared to abide by any
B.A.No.6496 of 2007 2
conditions. They may be saved of the undeserved trauma of arrest
and detention, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that while it is evident that the
civil dispute is there, that cannot be a valid defence for the allegation
of theft, which the police on investigation is satisfied, had really taken
place.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, notwithstanding
the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor , I am satisfied, that
the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject of course to
appropriate conditions which shall ensure 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 07.11.07. 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
B.A.No.6496 of 2007 3
p.m on 08.11.07 and 09.11.07. During this period, the Investigating
Officer shall be entitled to interrogate the petitioners in custody and
take all necessary steps in the investigation of the crime. Thereafter
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;
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 07.11.07. 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 07.11.2007.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
