High Court Kerala High Court

Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 1 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
Paulose vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 1 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6371 of 2009()


1. PAULOSE, S/O.KURUVILA, AGED 69 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. BYJU, S/O.PAULOSE, VEENALIL,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :01/12/2009

 O R D E R
                       K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                    ---------------------------
                     B.A. No. 6371 of 2009
                ------------------------------------
            Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009

                            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.672/2009 of Adimaly

Police Station, Idukki.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under

Sections 323, 324, 394 and 450 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on

05/11/2009, the following order was passed:

“Petitioners herein are the father and brother of

the defacto complainant. Annexure-1 is an F.I.R.

registered against the defacto complainant in the

present case at the instance of the wife of the second

accused herein. Annexure-3 relates to Crime No.

674/2009 in which the first petitioner herein is the

defacto complainant and his daughter is the accused.

In view of the relationship between the parties,

B.A. No. 6371/2009
2

the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

he would explore the possibilities of a settlement

between the parties.

Post after two weeks.

The undertaking not to arrest the petitioners will

continue to be in force until further orders.”

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor that the parties

have settled the disputes between them.

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 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 a 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.A. No. 6371/2009
3

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

scm