Judgment · High Court · 2009

K.T. SANKARAN, J.---------------------------B.A. No.4275 of 2009------------------------------------Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail underSection 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioneris the accused in Crime No.11/2009 of Sulthan Bathery PoliceStation.2.The offences alleged against the petitioner areunder Sections 415 and 420 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code.3.The case was initiated by the defacto complainantby filing a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the FirstClass- I, Sulthan Bathery, which was forwarded to the policefor investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of CriminalProcedure.4.Apprehending arrest, the petitioner had filed B.A.No.3631/2009. When the Bail Application came up for hearingon 6/07/2009, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted thatthe charge was laid in the case on 31/05/2009. I disposed of B.A. No.4275 / 2009Page numbersthe Bail Application holding thus:“Since the charge was laid bythe investigating officer, I do not think it is necessary toentertain the application for anticipatory bail. There cannot beany apprehension for the petitioner that he will be arrested bythe investigating officer on an accusation of having committed anon-bailable offence. The Bail Application has therefore become unnecessary. Itis accordingly, closed.”5.The present Bail Application is filed by the petitionerstating that he apprehends arrest and the submission made inB.A. No.3631/2009 that charge was laid was not correct. Anorder dated 28/07/2009 was passed by me, which reads asfollows:“ The petitioner had filed B.A. No. 3631/2009 foranticipatory bail. That application was closed on6/07/2009 on the submission made by the learnedpublic prosecutor that charge was laid in the case on31/05/2009. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted soon the basis of the written statement from the SubInspector of Police, Sulthan Batheri. B.A. No.4275 / 2009Page numbers2.Thereafter, the petitioner applied for acertified copy of the charge sheet. The JudicialMagistrate of the First Class- I, Sulthan Batheri hasreturned the copy application stating that the chargesheet was not filed in the case till 17/07/2009.3.The petitioner apprehends arrest. There will be adirection to the Sub Inspector of Police, SulthanBatheri Police Station, not to arrest the petitioner for aperiod of two weeks.”6.Today, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted thatcharge has not been filed in the case. It is also stated that thesubmission made earlier in B.A. No.3631/2009 was a mistake. 7.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thatthe petitioner is being constantly threatened by police and heapprehends arrest even now. The learned Public Prosecutorsubmitted that the investigation is over and charge is about to belaid. 8.Taking into account the facts and circumstances of thecase, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am ofthe view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. B.A. No.4275 / 2009Page numbersThere will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of thepetitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall releasehim on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with twosolvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of theofficer concerned, subject to the following conditions:A)The petitioner shall appear before theinvestigating officer for interrogation as andwhen required;B)The petitioner shall not try to influence theprosecution witnesses or tamper with theevidence.C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence orindulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.D) In case of breach of any of the conditionsmentioned above, the bail shall be liable to becancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicatedabove. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGEscm