IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5061 of 2009()
1. GLADSON MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 20
... Petitioner
2. JERIN JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 19
Vs
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUDHISH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :12/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 5061 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 1.3.2010,
the following order was passed:
“This is an application for anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime
No.352/2009 of Thamarassery Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners
are under Sections 323 and 333 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3(1) of the P.D.P.P Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused
attacked the de facto complainant, while on duty, who
was working as a conductor in a K.S.R.T.C. Bus.
4. When the Bail Application came up for
hearing on various dates, it was submitted that as a part
of the settlement, the driver and conductor of the bus
were compensated, as a result of the mediation talk held
B.A. NO. 5061 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
at the instance of the Trade Union Leaders. It was also
submitted that the petitioners are prepared to
compensate the K.S.R.T.C for the loss sustained by
them. The first petitioner has filed an affidavit and stated
thus:
“On 9/10/2009 myself, second petitioner and our
parents, Sri. George M Thomas, MLA, Varghese Simon
(Advocate), De facto complainant K.C. Sasi (conductor)
Sri. Dasan (driver), the KSRTC Union Leader, Sri.
Pramod, KSRTC Employees Association and other
Union Members sat together and settled the dispute. As
per the joint decision taken in the meeting, it was
decided to give Rs.25,000/- to the de facto complainant
and Rs.5,000/- to driver Dasan. On the same day
Second Petitioners father Mr. Joseph entrusted
Rs.30,000/- to the union leader to Mr. Pramod. It
was also decided in the meeting that our parents will
contact KSRTC officials to compensate the loss and
settle the claim.
On the basis of that the second petitioners father
Mr. Joseph contacted the Hon’ble minister of Transport
Sri. Jose Thattayal by filing a representation.
Considering the representation, minister gave direction
to meet the Managing Director of KSRTC. The second
petitioners father Mr. Joseph approached the managing
B.A. NO. 5061 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
director KSRTC and accordingly managing director
given direction to RTO, Kozhikode to compute the loss.
The RTO, Kozhikode calculated the loss at
Rs.15,000/-, our parents was ready to meet the loss but
RTO, kozhikode is not ready to accept the money
because there is a charge against us under PDPP Act
hence the RTO want a specific direction to receive the
amount. We are ready to compensate the loss of
KSRTC to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. We already paid
Rs.30,000/- to Mr. Pramod as he was the mediator.”
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 8th
March, 2010.
6. Post on 12/03/2010.
7. It is submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until
further orders in connection with Crime No. 352 of 2009
of Thamarassery Police Station.
B.A. NO. 5061 OF 2009
:: 4 ::
The petitioners shall produce a copy of this order
before the investigating officer.”
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as
well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order
dated 1.3.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners.
3. 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 1.3.2010 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.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 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;
B.A. NO. 5061 OF 2009
:: 5 ::
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/