IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5654 of 2009()
1. DINESH KUMAR.T,S/O.THATHWA PRAKASH,
... Petitioner
2. DILEEP KUMAR.T,S/O.THATHWA PRAKASH,
3. PREEJA KUMARI.P.V,W/O.SHYAM KUMAR.T,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR
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. 5654 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. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 4
in Crime No.762 of 2009 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam
District.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 323, 324, 341, 447, 452, 326 and 308 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on
25.1.2010, the following order was passed:
“When the Bail Application came up for hearing
on 23.12.2009, the following order was passed providing
an opportunity to settle the case between the parties:
“Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the
counsel who appeared for the de facto
complainant.
B.A. NO. 5654 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
2. There are disputes between three
brothers in respect of immovable property. The
incident occurred on 1/8/2009. Two crimes are
registered in respect of that incident. Crime
No.762/2009 of Karunagappally Police Station
was registered for the offences under Sections
323, 324, 341, 447, 452, 326 and 308 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The de facto
complainant is Adarsh. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are
the paternal uncles of Adarsh.
3. In Crime No.775/2009, the accused
persons are Adarsh and his mother Pushpalatha.
The de facto complainant is Dileep Kumar, who is
accused No.3 in Crime No.762/2009. The
offences alleged in Crime No.775/2009 are under
Sections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
4. It is common case that the Resurvey
Officials came to the property for measurement of
the disputed property. The father of Adarsh was
not available in station. It is also common case
that Survey Officials could not complete the work.
According to Adarsh, this was on their request to
postpone the work as his father was not available.
According to the accused in Crime No.762/2009,
B.A. NO. 5654 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
when the Re-survey Officials demanded to
produce the title deeds, Adarsh did not do so and
he provoked his paternal uncles by abusive
words.
5. It is also common case that some
incidents took place near the grill in front of the
house of Adarsh. According to Adarsh and his
mother, the grill was pushed open and his mother
was pulled out and the accused committed the
offence. According to the accused in Crime
No.762/2009, the de facto complainant’s mother
sustained injuries when the grill came into contact
with her head.
6. Counsel on either side submitted that
it would be ideal if the parties settle their disputes
and differences in respect of the properties and
also in respect of the incidents which occurred on
1/8/2009. The counsel pray that one month’s time
may be granted to see whether the matter could
be settled.
Post after one month.
7. The undertaking not to arrest the
petitioners will continue to be in force till then.”
B.A. NO. 5654 OF 2009
:: 4 ::
2. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the de
facto complainant did not fully co-operate with the
settlement talks. According to the counsel for the de facto
complainant, the default was on the side of the petitioners.
3. In the facts and circumstances, there will be a
direction to the petitioners to appear before the
investigating officer at 9 AM on 1st and 2nd February,
2010. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant
submitted that the de facto complainant also would be
present before the investigating officer on 1st and 2nd
February, 2010. The petitioners shall produce a copy of
the order before the investigating officer.
4. Post on 9th February, 2010.
5. The undertaking not to arrest the petitioners
will continue to be in force till then.
It is submitted by the counsel on either side that
the attempts to settle the dispute can be continued in
the presence of the investigating officer. This
submission is recorded.”
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 25.1.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners.
However, it is stated that the de facto complainant did not appear.
B.A. NO. 5654 OF 2009
:: 5 ::
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 25.1.2010 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:
a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating
officer for interrogation as and when required;
b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;
c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge
in any prejudicial activity while on bail;
d) 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/