Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1075 of 2014 of Kannur Town Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 354, 506(ii) and 427 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 20.07.2014 at about 20:30 hours, when the de facto complainant and his friends were standing at the de facto complainant's aunt's house, the petitioners and 12 other identifiable persons formed into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the de facto complainant's house and pushed down his mother and thereafter damaged the car belonging to the friend of the de facto complainant, which was lying in the porch of the de facto complainant's house and thereby committed the aforementioned offences.
3. Sri.Sreekumar G (Chelur), learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the allegations are falsely foisted against the petitioners and that the non-bailable offences alleged in the aforementioned crime against the petitioners are only offences under Sections 452 and 354. Further that even going by the prosecution case, the allegation connecting them with the offences related to Section 354, for outraging modesty of the women, it is stated that the petitioner has pushed down the mother of the de facto complainant and that not even any injuries are alleged. The petitioners would further submit that they have been falsely implicated because of the enmity of the de facto complainant as the de facto complainant herein has been implicated earlier on 12.05.2014 in Crime No.724 of 2014 of the same Police Station for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 506(ii), 392 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and that serious injuries have been caused to the second petitioner herein as evident from Annexures I and II medical discharge summaries.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that Crime No.724 of 2014 of the same Police Station has been registered as against the de facto complainant herein as early as on 12.05.2014, based on the complaint preferred by the second petitioner herein. The learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that no injuries are seen suffered by the de facto complainant herein in the instant Crime No.724 of 2014, in which the petitioners herein are the accused. It is also submitted that in case this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in this case, the same may be with sufficient safeguards so as to protect the interest of the prosecution.
5. Having considered 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 in this case, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners but, with sufficient safeguards so as to protect the interest of the prosecution.
Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners in connection with Crime No.1075 of 2014 of Kannur Town Police Station, they shall be released on bail on each of them separately executing 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 aforementioned crime, and subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within three days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if either of them are not holders of passport, they shall file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioners requires their passport in connection with their travel abroad, then they shall approach the court 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, (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.
iii) The petitioners shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
iv) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation and report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
Vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge