IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 49 of 2010()
1. SATHEESAN,AGED 24,S/O.REGHUNATHAN,
... Petitioner
2. LATHEESAN @ RATHEESAN,AGED 30,
3. RAMESAN,AGED 28,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.RAJA
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :09/02/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 49 of 2010
----------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 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 to 3 in Crime No.812/2009 of Paripally Police Station,
Kollam.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 294(b), 341, 427, 323, 324, 326 and 452 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that on 5/12/2009 at
11.30 P.M., the accused persons trespassed into the house of the
de facto complainant and attacked her. The de facto complainant
sustained fracture of nasal bone. It is also alleged that accused
persons had broken the window panes of the house of the de
facto complainant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the case was foisted against the petitioners. The learned counsel
submitted that the de facto complaint is the aunt of the
petitioners. It is stated that the husband of the de facto
complainant, Radhakrishnan is the brother of Sudarmani, the
mother of the petitioners. The father of Sudarmani and
B.A. No. 49 /2010
2
Radhakrishnan is one Raghavan. It is stated that Raghavan has
filed a complaint before the Tribunal under the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The petitioners
and their mother, Sudarmani supported Raghavan in that
proceeding. The de facto complainant and her husband are
opposing the claim of Raghavan. According to the petitioners, the
present case was foisted on account of that rivalry.
5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injuries
sustained by the de facto complainant, I am not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to accused No.1 (first petitioner). I am of the
view that the first petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary
relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. However, in so far as the case of accused Nos. 2 and 3
(Petitioners 2 and 3) is concerned, it stands on a different
footing. The overt acts alleged against petitioners 2 and 3 are not
attributable to the grievous hurt caused to the de facto
complainant. In these circumstances and also taking into account
other circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that
anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 2 and 3 (accused
Nos. 2 and 3). There will be a direction that in the event of the
B.A. No. 49 /2010
3
arrest of petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos. 2 and 3), 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) Petitioners 2 and 3 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) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as and
when required;
C) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence.
D) Petitioners 2 and 3 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.
Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it
relates to the first Petitioner (accused No.1) and it is allowed in
the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to petitioners
2 and 3 (accused Nos.2 and 3).
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm