High Court Kerala High Court

Baiju vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Baiju vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 1897 of 2010()


1. BAIJU, KUZHIVILA MEKKE PUTHEN VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. BABU, MANNADI PUTHEN VEEDU,

                        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 :31/03/2010

 O R D E R
                         K.T.SANKARAN, J.
            ------------------------------------------------------
                      B.A. NO. 1897 OF 2010
            ------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010


                               O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.3

and 4 in Crime No.186 of 2010 of Neyyattinkara Police Station.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section

304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on

24.3.2010, 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 AM on 26.3.2010

and 27.3.2010.

B.A. NO. 1897 OF 2010

:: 2 ::

Post on 31.3.2010.

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.

The petitioners shall produce a copy of this

order before the investigating officer.”

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as

well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order

dated 24.3.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners.

5. 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 24.3.2010 has been complied with by

the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted

to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the

arrest of the petitioners, 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 conditions:

B.A. NO. 1897 OF 2010

:: 3 ::

a) The petitioners 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) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating
officer for interrogation as and when required;

c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

d) The petitioners 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 allowed to the extent indicated above.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/