IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1340 of 2010()
1. JOY CHACKO CHENNAMALA VEEDU,
... Petitioner
2. FEBIN CHARLES JOY S/O. JOY CHACKO
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :22/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No.1340 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 22ndday of March, 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 and 2 in Crime No.36/2010 of Perumpetty Police Station,
Pathanamthitta.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that on 14/2/2010, the
petitioners, father and son, attacked the de facto complainant
and the de facto complainant sustained serious injuries. It would
appear that there was some quarrel between the de facto
complainant and the second accused. The allegation is that
thereafter when the first accused, the father of the second
accused, asked the de facto complainant about the incident,
accused No.2 attacked the de facto complainant asking why the
de facto complainant had assaulted the first petitioner. The first
B.A. No.1340/2010
2
petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant with stick and
stone, which caused grievous hurt. He had to undergo a surgery
as a result of the injuries sustained.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
Crime No.33/2010 was registered on 15/2/2010 in respect of the
incident which occurred on 14/2/2010. In that case, the second
petitioner herein is the de facto complainant and the accused
persons include the de facto complainant in the present case.
Crime No.33/2010 was registered for the offences under
Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 324 and 427 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, it can be seen that the grievous injuries caused to the
de facto complainant are attributable to the overt acts done by
the first petitioner/first accused. The overt acts made by the
second petitioner/second accused have not resulted in any
grievous injuries to the de facto complainant.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the second
B.A. No.1340/2010
3
petitioner/second accused. At the same time, I am of the view
that the first petitioner/first accused is not entitled to the
discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the first petitioner, it
would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case.
Accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the
arrest of the second petitioner/second accused, 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 second petitioner/second accused
(Febin Charles Joy) shall appear before
the investigating officer for interrogation
as and when required.
B) The second petitioner/second accused
(Febin Charles Joy) shall not try to
influence the prosecution witnesses or
tamper with the evidence.
C) The second petitioner/second accused
(Febin Charles Joy) shall not commit any
offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity
while on bail.
B.A. No.1340/2010
4
D) In case of breach of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to
be cancelled.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed
in so far as it relates to the first petitioner/ first accused and it
is allowed in the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates
to the second petitioner/second accused.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm