High Court Kerala High Court

Stansilavose vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Stansilavose vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7059 of 2009()


1. STANSILAVOSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SHYLAN JOHN,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :15/01/2010

 O R D E R
                           K.T.SANKARAN, J.
              ------------------------------------------------------
                        B.A. NO. 7059 OF 2009
              ------------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010


                                 O R D E R

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 5.1.2010,

the following order was passed:

“This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in Crime No.

487/2009 of Kilikolloor Police Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioners

are under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 308 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27

of the Arms Act.

3. The date of occurrence was on 25.09.2009.

It is alleged that three persons including the de facto

complainant sustained injuries as a result of the attack

made by the accused persons.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that in respect of the incident on 25.09.2009, another

crime was registered as Crime No. 486/2009, in which

B.A. NO.7059 OF 2009

:: 2 ::

the first petitioner is the defacto complainant. It is also

submitted that he sustained serious injuries including

fracture. The learned counsel also pointed out that even

before and after the incident on 25.09.2009, the first

petitioner was attacked by several persons including the

defacto complainant in the present case. It is also

pointed out that the wife of the second accused/second

petitioner had to approach this court in W.P. C. No.

30893/2009 for police protection for the life of herself

and her family members. The counsel also submits that

there are civil disputes pending between the parties.

After having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, 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 A.M. on 11th and 12th January,

2010.

Post on 15.01.2010.

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

that the petitioners will not be arrested until further

orders in connection with Crime No.487/2009 of

Kilikolloor Police Station.

B.A. NO.7059 OF 2009

:: 3 ::

The petitioners shall produce copy of this order

before the investigating officer.”

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 5.1.2010 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

the direction in the order dated 5.1.2010 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;

B.A. NO.7059 OF 2009

:: 4 ::

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/