IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 8018 of 2010()
1. CHUZHALLIKKARA ABDULLA,
... Petitioner
2. SOOPI, S/O. ABDULL, AGED 65 YEARS,
3. AYISHA, W/O. SOOPI,
4. ZEENATH, D/O. SOOPI,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :23/12/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
..............................................
B.A. No.8018 of 2010
................................................
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010.
O R D E R
In this Petition filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioners
who are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 279 of 2010 of
Valayam Police Station, Kozhikode for offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 406, 354, 511 and 376 r/w Section 34
I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that petitioners 3 and 4
have since been arrested. If so, their application for anticipatory
bail has become infructuous and is accordingly rejected.
3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are
to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of
the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others
(Crl.Appeal No. 2271 of 2010), I am inclined to grant anticipatory
B.A. No. 8018/2010 -:2:-
bail to petitioners 1 and 2. Accordingly, a direction is issued to
the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned to release
petitioners 1 and 2 on bail in the event of their arrest in
connection with the above case on each of them executing a bond
for `25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two
solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction to the
said officer and subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioners 1 and 2 shall report before the
Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on
all Wednesdays.
2. Petitioners 1 and 2 shall make themselves available
for interrogation including custodial interrogation
as and when required by the Investigating Officer.
3. Petitioners 1 and 2 shall not influence or
intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they
attempt to tamper with the evidence for the
prosecution.
4. Petitioners 1 and 2 shall not commit any offence
while on bail.
5. The bail granted pursuant to this order shall be
B.A. No. 8018/2010 -:3:-
in force till the end of the trial of the case unless
and until it is cancelled by this Court in
accordance with paragraph 103 of the verdict
in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre’s case
(supra).
If petitioners 1 and 2 commit breach of any of the above
conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled.
This application is allowed as above.
Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv