LAWS(KER)-2007-1-151

SHANAVAS MUHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On January 19, 2007
SHANAVAS MUHAMMED Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What conditions should be imposed normally in an order granting anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C. Is there any condition which must inevitably be imposed in all such orders granting anticipatory bail. Is the omnibus direction that the accused "if arrested, shall be released on bail on executing a bond" as specified a sufficient and satisfactory condition ordinarily. These questions arise for consideration in this Crl.M.C. where the specific prayer is for cancellation of an order granting anticipatory bail to the respondents who are accused 1, 3 and 5 a prosecution, inter alia, under Sec. 308 of the IPC.

(2.) To the vital skeletal facts first. The petitioners are 3 of a total of seven accused who face allegations now for the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 506 (ii), 326 and 308 read with Sec. 149 of the IPC. The de facto complainant along with his sister had allegedly gone to the Holy Grace Academy of Management Studies, Mala. His wife was a student of that college. The de facto complainant's sister was allegedly insulted. Later, he had gone to the College at 1.30 p.m. on 25/9/06 to give a complaint to the Principal about the misbehaviour of the accused. It is then that the accused persons allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant and other with dangerous weapons. The accused persons have, in turn, a contention that the de facto complainant had gone to the College for not making any complaint. But had gone to the College along with some others with the intention of attacking the persons who, according to hi, were allegedly responsible for the earlier incident. Crime was registered. Investigation was in progress.

(3.) The respondents (accused 1,3 and 5) had filed an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge and learned Session Judge by the order dated 13/10/06, which is sought to be cancelled in this Crl.M.C., had granted anticipatory bail to the respondents. The operative portion of the order is extracted below: