IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1222 of 2010()
1. SAJU, AGED 28 YEARS,S/O.NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
2. RAJITH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.K.RAGHAVAN,
3. RAJESH,AGED 29 YEARS, S/OM.K.NARAYANAN
4. BABU,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.KELU,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :31/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 1222 OF 2010
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010
O R D E R
When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 19.3.2010,
the following order was passed:
“This is an application for anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
petitioners are the accused in Crime No.85 of 2010 of
Sreekandapuram Police Station, Kannur District.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners
are under Sections 341, 323, 326 and 427 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The statement made by the de facto
complainant in the First Information Statement is the
following: On 9.2.2010 at about 8.30 PM, the de facto
complainant closed his shop and went home. After he
reached his house, at about 9.45 PM, Saju (accused
No.1) called him over phone and stated that there was
some problem near the shop of the de facto
complainant. The de facto complainant was requested
to reach the place immediately. Believing the words of
the first accused, the de facto complainant rushed to the
place in his Mahindra Pick up autorickshaw. When the
B.A. NO. 1222 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
de facto complainant reached near his shop, at 9.55
PM, the accused persons intercepted the vehicle.
Accused No.2, Renjit, removed the key of the
autorickshaw. Later, the accused persons pulled the de
facto complainant out of the vehicle and he was
manhandled. He was beaten with an iron rod and also
with hands. It is also alleged that the accused persons
destroyed the windshield glass of the autorickshaw.
The de facto complainant was admitted in the hospital.
The wound certificate shows that the de facto
complainant had sustained dislocation of his right
shoulder and fracture of neck of IV metacarpal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that no motive is alleged for the offence. It is
submitted that even though motive is not necessary for
the proof of offence, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, one would expect as to why
the de facto complainant was called by the accused to
go over to the place of occurrence. The learned counsel
for the petitioners submitted that an altercation took
place at the place of occurrence when the de facto
complainant, in a drunken stage, abused the accused
persons. But there was no attack or manhandling as
alleged by the accused and he had sustained injuries
not due to any overt acts committed by the accused.
B.A. NO. 1222 OF 2010
:: 3 ::
5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. I have
also perused the case diary.
6. Taking into account 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 AM on 24th and 25th March,
2010. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the order
before the investigating officer.
7. Post on 31st March, 2010.
It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor
that the petitioners will not be arrested until further
orders in connection with Crime No.85 of 2010 of
Sreekandapuram Police Station, Kannur District.”
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 19.3.2010 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
B.A. NO. 1222 OF 2010
:: 4 ::
the direction in the order dated 19.3.2010 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.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 report before the investigating
officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate
Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further
orders;
b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating
officer for interrogation as and when required;
c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;
d) The petitioners 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
ahz/