IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5691 of 2009()
1. DEEPAK, S/O.DAMODARAN, BAVOTTUKUNIYIL,
... Petitioner
2. SHAJI, S/O.ACHU, AACHILATTUKUNIYIL,
3. RAJEESH, S/O.RAJAN, BAVOTHUKUNIYIL,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :09/02/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 5691 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 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.1 to 3 in Crime No.119/2009 of Kolavallur Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 427 read with Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act.
3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on
8/01/2010, 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 13th and
14th January, 2010.
Post on 19/01/2010.
It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor
that the petitioners will not be arrested until further
orders in connection with Crime No.119 of 2009 of
B.A. No. 5691/ 2009
2
Kolavallur Police Station, Kannur.
The petitioners shall produce copy of this order
before the investigating officer.”
4. The second petitioner could not comply with that
order. Later, on 25/1/2010, another order was passed, which
reads as follows:
“The petitioner herein (Shaji), who is the
second petitioner in the Bail Application, states that
he could not comply with the direction contained in
the order dated 8.1.2010 as he was suffering from
respiratory infection. Annexure II medical
certificate is produced in support of the contention.
The petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner
shall appear before the investigating officer at 9
A.M on 1st and 2nd February, 2010. The petitioner
shall produce a copy of the order before the
investigating officer.
Post on 8th February, 2010.”
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners
have complied with the directions contained in the orders dated
8/01/2010 and 25/01/2010.
6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of
B.A. No. 5691/ 2009
3
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.10,000/- each with
two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:
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
scm