The two petitioners herein, who are the brothers, are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.657 of 2014 of Kannamali Police Station, Ernakulam District, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 447, 354, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the lady de facto complainant herein is a close neighbour of the petitioners. There is some civil dispute subsisted between the petitioners and the informant. It is alleged that on 23.09.2014 at about 9.30 p.m, the petitioners herein barged into the house and the first petitioner caught hold of her hand and thereby outraged her modesty. It is alleged that the second petitioner assaulted the informant with a wooden reaper and the accused committed the offences as alleged.
3. Adv.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the allegations are false and the lady de facto complainant is a quarrelsome person and for bolstering her case in the civil dispute, the above false allegations have been raised thereby it has led to the triggering of the above said crime. The petitioners have moved application for bail, which was rejected by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam as per Annexure-I order dated 16.10.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that no wounds or injuries are suffered by the de facto complainant even going by the version of the investigation and that non bailable offence alleged in this case is only under Section 354 of IPC. Therefore, it is prayed that the plea of pre-arrest bail may be allowed in the interest of justice that the petitioners undertake that they comply with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting pre-arrest bail, so as to protect the bonafide interest of the prosecution.
4. The learned public prosecutor would fairly submits that there are no wounds/injuries as disclosed in the investigation materials. He would also submits that, even going by the version of the first informant, there subsisted some civil disputes between the parties regarding the pathway. The learned Public Prosecutor would further submits that in case this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the same may be restricted with necessary conditions so as to protect the fair and smooth conduct of the investigation.
5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and on evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to hold that discretion can be exercised to allow the plea of pre-arrest bail in this case but with sufficient safeguards and conditions.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners herein in connection with the above said crime, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for `35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the above crime and subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within 3 days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if are not holder of passport, then they shall file affidavits to that effect in the said court. If the petitioners require passport in connection with their travel abroad, then they are free to approach the court below concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala, reported in 2009 (2) KLT 712, notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court.
(ii) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar nature or graver in nature.
(iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required.
(iv) The petitioners shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
If the petitioners violate any of the conditions as ordered above, then the bail granted to them are liable to be cancelled.
With the above said directions, this Bail Application is allowed.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
AMV/29/10/