IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 7845 of 2007()
1. AJI, S/O.BABY THOMAS, PULLIYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. BIJU, S/O.BABY THOMAS, PULLIYIL HOUSE,
3. ABILASH, S/O.JOY JOSEPH,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.T.JOSE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :25/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 7845 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused 1 to 3. They face allegations in a crime registered under
Sections 308 and 408 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that
the petitioners had trespassed into the shop of one Roy and
indulged in acts of violence using dangerous weapon – handle of
axe. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress.
The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent. They are really the victims of
aggression. The real incident did not take place as alleged by the
prosecution. There is an incident outside the shop of the Roy,
which lies within the jurisdiction of the neighbouring police
station. There, the petitioners were attacked and they have
suffered injuries. Investigation is complete. Final report has
already been filed alleging offences under Sections 323 and 324
B.A.No. 7845 of 2007
2
I.P.C. As a counter blast, false allegations have been raised in the
present crime. In any view of the matter, the petitioners who are really
the victims of aggression, may not be compelled to endure the trauma
of arrest and detention. The allegation under Section 308 I.P.C. has
been included in the crime registered in the neighbouring police
station solely to help the defacto complainant in this case, submits the
learned counsel.
3. The learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application. The
nature of the injuries suffered have been read over to me.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that
this is a fit case where directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be
issued in favour of the petitioners.
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 1.2.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the
B.A.No. 7845 of 2007
3
petitioners on regular bail on condition that they execute bonds
for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty 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 2.2.08 and 3.2.2008. During this period, the investigators shall
be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in custody and take all
necessary steps in connection with the investigation. Thereafter they
shall appear before the Investigating Officer 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 1.2.2008
and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioners and
deal with them in accordance with law.
B.A.No. 7845 of 2007
4
(d) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on
1.2.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released on bail
on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/- each without any surety
undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 1.2.2008.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm