High Court Kerala High Court

Johnson vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 18 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
Johnson vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 18 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6291 of 2009()


1. JOHNSON, S/O.RAJU GEORGE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :18/11/2009

 O R D E R
                        K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                  ---------------------------------------------
                         B.A.No.6291 of 2009
                  ---------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009


                               ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section

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

first accused in Crime No.943 of 2009 of Pathanamthitta Police

Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on

3.11.2009, the following order was passed:

“After having heard the learned counsel for

the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor,

I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail

Application, an opportunity should be given to the

petitioner to appear before the investigating

officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to

the petitioner to appear before the investigating

officer at 9 A.M. on 7th and 8th November, 2009.

Post on 12.11.2009.

It is submitted by the learned Public

BA No.6291/2009 2

Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be

arrested until further orders in connection with

Crime No.943 of 2009 of Pathanamthitta Police

Station.

The petitioner shall serve a copy of this

order to the investigating officer.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has complied

with the direction contained in the order dated 3.11.2009.

5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, 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 for a
period of two months;

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

BA No.6291/2009 3

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
csl