IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1183 of 2010()
1. BABURAJ, S/O.SUKUMARAN, POTTAVILA VEEDU,
... Petitioner
2. VIJAYARAJ, S/O. SUKUMARAN,
3. SUDARSANADAS, S/O.JOHNSON,
4. WILSON, S/O.JOHNSON, KANJIVILA VEEDU,
5. SELIN, S/O.JOHNSON, CHEKKALAKKAL
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :24/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.1183 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010
ORDER
The petitioners apprehend arrest by Neyyattinkara police in
Crime No.186 of 2010, on an allegation of having committed non
bailable offence under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that the names of petitioners 1, 3 and 4 were deleted from the
array of accused. Petitioners 2 and 5 are respectively accused
Nos.5 and 1.
2. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on
10.3.2010, the following order was passed:
“After having heard the learned counsel for
the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor,
I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail
Application, an opportunity should be given to the
petitioners to appear before the investigating
officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to
the petitioners to appear before the investigating
officer at 9 A.M. on 17th and 18th March, 2010.
The petitioners shall produce a copy of the order
before the investigating officer.
BA No.1183/2010 2
Post on 24th March, 2010.
It is submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be
arrested until further orders in connection with
Crime No.186 of 2010 of Neyyattinkara Police
Station.”
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the
direction contained in the order dated 10.3.2010 has been
complied with by petitioners 2 and 5.
4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact
that the direction in the order dated 10.3.2010 has been
complied with by petitioners 2 and 5, I am of the view that
anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 2 and 5 (Accused
Nos.5 and 1).
There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of
petitioners 2 and 5, the officer in charge of the police station
shall release them on bail on their executing bond for
Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to
the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following
BA No.1183/2010 3
conditions:
a) Petitioners 2 and 5 shall report before the
investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11
A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report
is filed or until further orders;
b) Petitioners 2 and 5 shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as and
when required;
c) Petitioners 2 and 5 shall not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence;
d) Petitioners 2 and 5 shall not commit any offence
or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on
bail;
e) In case of breach of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be
cancelled.
The Bail Application is closed in so far as it relates to
petitioners 1, 3 and 4 as their names were deleted from the array
of accused and the Bail Application is allowed in the manner
indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 and 5.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl