The petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with crime No.1699/2014 of Kottiyam Police Station, has approached this Court seeking relief of anticipatory bail. It is stated that Crime No. 1699/2014 of Kottiyam Police Station was registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 506(ii), 354, 323, 427 read with section 149 of the IPC, on the basis of the information furnished by the lady defacto complainant herein. The version was that the 7 persons named therein, viz., accused A1 to A7 and 10 other identifiable persons have committed aforementioned offences by forming themselves into unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons, criminally trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant at about 9.30 p.m. on 2.9.2014 with the intention to cause bodily injury to the defacto complainant and others and caused damages to the tune of Rs.70,000/- and when the defacto complainant obstructed the accused, accused Nos.1 to 7 pushed down the defacto complainant and the husband of the defacto complainant by kicking and beating him and the 2nd accused had shown a sword-stick and threatened them saying that their son will be killed and used abusive language and the defacto complainant was pushed down causing her bodily harm. The petitioner has been subsequently arrayed as accused No.9 in this crime. 2. The sheet anchor of the contention raised by Sri.C.Rajenran, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the specific case of the defacto complainant is that there are seven named accused and 10 other identifiable persons, who can be easily identified by her and she has clearly and cogently attributed specific acts constituting the above said offences to some among the 7 named accused alone and there is not even a vague whisper that any one among the other 10 identifiable, but unnamed persons, who can be easily identified by her, have been attributed with any of the specific overt acts attributed by her in her complaint, which led to the lodging of the first information. He would further urge that none of the named accused could be arrested by the police. In spite of this, accused No.8, against whom no specific overt acts has been alleged by the first informant was arrested and that therefore the petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with this crime and seeks the prayer of pre-arrest bail in this case. Sri.C.Rajendern, the learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner would comply with any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court in the interest of justice so as to protect the interests of the prosecution.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that the above said submission that specific overt acts have been named and attributed by the first informant only to the persons, who are included in the named seven accused persons and that no specific overt acts have been alleged against the petitioner, who was subsequently added in the accused array as accused No.9. It was after the investigation that the petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.9 in this crime. But the prosecutor would submit that the specific case of the prosecution is that the offence under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is also involved and that therefore the common intention or at least any common knowledge in respect of the commission of above said alleged offence should be attributed to the other unnamed accused including the petitioner, who is now accused No.9. The Prosecutor further would submit that the investigation is not complete and in case this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, the same may be conditioned with sufficient safeguards and that the petitioner should be directed to make himself available for questioning and interrogation before the investigating officer and that he will fully co-operate with the conduct of the investigation.
4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on an evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to hold that the relief of pre-arrest bail can be given to the petitioner in this case, but subject to strict conditions so as to protect the bonafide interests of the prosecution. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner herein in connection with the above said crime, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand only) 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 petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within 3 days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if he is not a holder of passport, then he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then he is 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 petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in the above said crime between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on every alternate Sundays.
(iii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver in nature.
(iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required.
(v) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(vi) The petitioner shall make himself available for questioning and interrogation by the investigating officer forthwith, as and when intimated in that behalf by the investigating officer.
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions as ordered above, then the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled.
With the above said directions, this Application stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge