The petitioner herein is the 6th accused in Crime No.780/2014 of the Cheranallur Police Station, Ernakulam District, for offences under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 354, 324, 294(b), 506(ii) read with Sec.149 IPC. The only non-bailable offence among the offences enumerated above is one under Sec. 354 IPC. The offence under Sec.354 IPC is alleged in the FIR only as against accused No.2. The version of the prosecution is that on 4.7.2014, the accused persons attacked the defacto complainant and attempted to outrage the modesty of the Principal of the Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kunnumpuram. It is the case of the petitioner that he is fully innocent of the allegations and that he is falsely implicated and on 4.7.2014, there was a scuffle between two football teams in a match being played in the school and in the said scuffle, the petitioner's brother, Sri.Krishnaprasad, was being attacked by the other team and on knowing about this scuffle, the Principal of the school intervened to prevent any further untoward incidents. Only on coming to know about the attack of his brother that the petitioner immediately rushed to the spot in order to know whether he has sustained any injury and that by that time, the brother of the accused, who is a school student, had been implicated as the 1st accused and the petitioner has been arrayed as the 6th accused respectively in the above said crime. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner has preferred this application for anticipatory bail invoking the remedy under Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.c. 2. Sri.K.R.Vinod, the learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly urge that the only non-bailable offence alleged in the aforementioned crime is one under Sec. 354 IPC and that the said offence under Sec.354 has been alleged as against accused No. 2 and that no such allegation is admittedly raised as against the petitioner herein. The incident occurred in the aforementioned scuffle that took place between two teams that participated in a football match. The petitioner, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, had went to the scene only on coming to know about the attack on his brother by the members of the team and only to ascertain whether his brother had sustained any injury. The petitioner's application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, as per order dated 21.7.2014 as evidenced by Annexure A1.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that no offence under Sec. 354 IPC is alleged as against the petitioner and that the said offence is alleged only as against accused No.2. The learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that the investigation has not been completed and that accused No.3 is absconding and that the steel knife said to have been used by accused No.3 in the above said incident has to be recovered. The Prosecutor would further submit that the petitioner herein had used a motor cycle in the above said incident and the same has to be recovered from the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail in this case, but also submitted that in case this Court is so inclined to grant anticipatory bail, then the petitioner may be directed to forthwith surrender the motor cycle used in the incident before the investigating officer.
4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State authorities and after carefully evaluating the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the incident involved is one arising out of the scuffle that has taken place between two teams in a football mach and also the crucial fact that no non-bailable offence has been alleged against the petitioner herein and also that the offence under Sec.354 IPC in relation to outraging the modesty of women, is not alleged against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail. However, the same should be conditioned by sufficient safeguards to protect the bonafide interest of the Prosecution and for the fair and smooth conduct of the investigation. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being arrested, then 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 passport holder, then he shall file affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then he are free to approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case if 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 till the submission of the final report.
(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 motor cycle involved in the aforementioned crime shall be produced before the investigating officer, at any rate, within four days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
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 directions, this application for anticipatory bail stands disposed of.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge