High Court Kerala High Court

Balachandran Nair vs The State Of Kerala on 4 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
Balachandran Nair vs The State Of Kerala on 4 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6383 of 2009()


1. BALACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :04/12/2009

 O R D E R
                        K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                     ---------------------------
                      B.A. No. 6383 of 2009
                 ------------------------------------
            Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009

                             O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused

in Crime No.501/2009 of Koippuram Police Station,

Pathanamthitta.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 294(b) and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on

10/11/2009, the following order was passed:

” The de facto complainant and the accused are

said to be relatives. Learned counsel for the

petitioner sought two weeks’ time to explore the

possibilities of a settlement. Post after two weeks.

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

that the petitioner will not be arrested till then in

connection with Crime No.501/2009 of Koippuram

Police Station, Pathanamthitta District.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a

B.A. No. 6383 / 2009
2

memo dated 3/12/2009 stating that the defacto complainant and

the petitioner are relatives and that the disputes between them

have been settled amicably. An affidavit signed by the defacto

complainant is also produced along with the memo. Though, it is

stated in the memo that the court suggested a settlement, the

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a mistake

and the correct state of affairs is as shown in the order dated

10/11/2009.

5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case and the subsequent developments, I am of the view that

anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a

direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the

officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on

his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for

the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned,

subject to the following conditions:

A) The petitioner 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.A. No. 6383 / 2009
3

B) The petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as and
when required;

C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence.

D) The petitioner 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

scm