S. Unnikrishnan Nair and K.K. Rajan v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/23RD JYAISHTA 1935** **Bail Appl..No. 2528 of 2013 (C)** **------------------------------------------[CRIME NO.351/CR/HHW-II/EKM/12 OF ERNAKULAM CRIME BRANCH, (CRIME NO.455/12 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT)]** **................** ## **APPLICANTS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:** **-----------------------------------------------** **1. S. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (UNDER SUSPENSION) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (S.C.B), LAVANYA ,CHAVADINADA, VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 523.** **2. K.K.RAJAN, AGED 48 YEARS, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (UINDER SUSPENSION) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (S.C.B), KAILASAM, GURUDEV NAGAR, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM - 691 017.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **----------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH C.I.D, HHW-II, ERNAKULAM.).** ## ***ADDITIONAL R.2. IMPLEADED:** **2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ***ADDL. R.2. IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 13/06/13 IN CRL.M.A. NO.4456/13 IN B.A. 2528/13.** **Prv.** **B.A. NO.2528/2013-C:** ## ***ADDITIONAL R.3. IMPLEADED:** **3. NISHA HARIDATH, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. LATE P.G. HARIDATH, PADINJARAKOOTU HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, NOW RESIDING IN THRISSUR.** ***ADDL. R.3. IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 13/06/13 IN CRL.M.A. NO.4429/13 IN B.A. 2528/13.** **R1 BY ADDL. D.G.P. SRI. K.I. ABDUL RASHEED, ADDL.R2 BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, SRI. P. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, S.C, C.B.I ADDL. R3 BY ADVS.SRI.S.M.PRASANTH, SMT.SMITHA GEORGE.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2013, THE COURT ON 13/06/2013 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **P. BHAVADASAN, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 2528 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13[th] day of June, 2013. ## **ORDER** Two officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation, who were members of the Special Squad to investigate into the custodial death of Sampath, and whose sincere efforts in investigation yielded results and were paid encomium and cash awards, now find themselves arrayed as accused in a case registered consequent on the suicide of Shri.Haridath, who subsequently joined the investigation team. They are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 182, 194, 195, 195A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this bail application are as follows: A lady by name Sheela was brutally murdered on 23.3.2010. Since she was a prominent figure in the society and also had a relative who was a member of the Indian B.A.2528/2013. 2 Administrative Service, investigation was done with utmost urgency. One of the accused who was apprehended was one Sampath, who was taken into custody on 28.3.2010. He died while in custody on 29.3.2010. A crime was registered and finding that the investigation was not proceeding in the proper manner and that the real culprits may escape, the brother of the deceased, namely, Shri.Murukeshan, moved this court by filing W.P.(C) 13426 of 2010 seeking investigation by the C.B.I. This court, after going through the records and finding that there was no serious investigation going on and also finding that there was considerable justification in the grievance voiced by the petitioner, directed that the investigation of Sampath murder case, i.e., Crime No.251 of 2010 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad, which was till then being investigated by C.B.C.I.D. be transferred to C.B.I. for a detailed, impartial and meaningful investigation. It was also directed that the files be handed over to the Superintendent of Police (SPE, C.B.I.) Thiruvananthapuram B.A.2528/2013. 3 Branch. The said officer was directed by this court to entrust the investigation to one or more officers of proven record. The observation of this court which has considerable relevance reads as follows: “Every person directly or indirectly involved in the custodial torture of Sampath, howsoever high he may be, shall be brought to justice.” Presumably, in pursuance to the said direction, the investigation was entrusted to a Special Team constituted by C.B.I., Special Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein the first petitioner herein was to head the investigation with the assistance of the second petitioner and two others. The team received appreciation and cash awards for the excellent investigation carried on by them producing results within a short span of time. During investigation, it was revealed that two members of the Indian Police Service, i.e., the then Superintendent of Police, Palakkad Shri. Vijay Sakhare and the then Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range, Shri.Mohammed Yasim, 4 B.A.2528/2013. had considerable role to play in the incident. The first petitioner, therefore, sought permission of Shri.Nandakumar Nair, the then Head of Branch, Office of C.B.I., Thiruvananthapuram to array 18 persons as accused including the two officers made mention of. According to the petitioners, the said act infuriated Shri. Nandakumar Nair and thereafter things began to change. Memos after memos were issued to the first petitioner and after removing him, Shri.P.G.Haridath was appointed as Chief Investigating Officer with petitioners and others to function under him from 4.12.2010. The change in the attitude of the C.B.I. prompted the brother of Sampath, Shri.Murukeshan, to move this court by way of I.A. 16944 of 2010 in W.P.(C). 13426 of 2010, wherein he made several prayers, one of which was that there were attempts to subvert the proper investigation of the case by some vested interests. After having bestowed attention to various aspects, this court approved the appointment of B.A.2528/2013. 5 Shri.P.G.Haridath as the Chief of the investigating team, but held as follows: “It is hoped that the re-constituted investigation team with P.G.Haridath, D.S.P. At the Head and ably assisted by Unnikrishnan Nair and four other Police Officers, will soon make a headway in the matter and submit a final report against all the persons (howsoever high they may be) responsible for the brutal torture of Sampath leading to his tragic death.” This court also directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to monitor the investigation. It was observed by this court that there shall be no interference with the investigation conducted by the team and none of the members of the team shall be disturbed or dislocated during investigation without orders from this Court. The investigation continued under the leadership of Shri.P.G.Haridath and the team was able to collect considerable materials regarding the complicity of the persons who were sought to be arrayed as accused. On 14.3.2011, Shri.P.G.Haridath moved the CJM Court seeking issuance of arrest warrant against accused B.A.2528/2013. 6 Nos.1, 2, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Non-bailable warrants were issued against those accused persons including the two I.P.S. Officers. However, sparing the two I.P.S. Officers, others were arrested. Though the orders of this court were challenged before the Supreme Court, the Apex Court did not interfere with the material portions of the order, but only observed that the investigation be carried on under the supervision of a Joint Director of C.B.I. and that the investigation be carried on in accordance with the C.B.I. Manual. 3. Soon after the said order, Shri. O.P.Galhotra, I.P.S. as Joint Director and Shri.S.K.Peshin, Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. were inducted in the first week of April, 2011. It is not possible to understand when the Apex Court only observed that a Joint Director be put in charge of investigation, how two officers were nominated for the purpose. According to the petitioners, after the induction of the above mentioned officers, things began to take a different shape and turn. The petitioners would assert that B.A.2528/2013. 7 with effect from 3.9.2011, they were kept away from the investigation and they had no role to play thereafter. The result was that Shri.Haridath had to manage on his own. The petitioners would conclude that it was the deliberate ploy adopted by the C.B.I. to save the two I.P.S. Officers who were involved in the incident and Shri.Haridath had to face considerable difficulties. The petitioners would say that the pressure was so severe that ultimately unable to bear the same, Shri.Haridath committed suicide on 15.3.2012. A perusal of the Case Diary, after the above two officers came to the scene, would establish that Shri.Haridath was compelled to recall many of the witnesses who had been examined earlier and some of whom were made approvers. They, on recall, gave contradictory statements. An honest officer like Shri.Haridath could not have put up with such objectionable conduct and that finally led to the mishap. 4. The petitioners would say that they are sought to be roped in on the basis of a note said to have been left B.A.2528/2013. 8 behind by Shri.Haridath and which was recovered soon after his death. The note indicated that the petitioners along with a Counsel for the C.B.I. and the CJM concerned were responsible for the plight in which he was placed. 5. The petitioners would point out that thereafter they were persistently harassed and they were transferred to different places and were issued with several memos. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against them. In connection with the suicide of Shri.Haridath, petitioners have been elaborately questioned and they have always been co-operating with the investigation. The vindictive nature of the investigating agency is clear from the fact that raids were conducted in the houses of the petitioners and they were put to all sorts of humiliation. Undue haste is being shown to indict the petitioners and it is significant to notice, according to the petitioners, that they were asked to subject themselves to polygraph test, Narco Analysis test etc. B.A.2528/2013. 9 6. In short, the claim of the petitioners is that they are being targeted for naming the two IPS officers involved in the custodial death of Sampath and in order to enable those two officers to escape, the petitioners are being made scape-goats. They, therefore, seek the aid of this court and pray for pre-arrest bail. 7. A statement has been filed by the investigating officer, who is the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, HHW-II, Ernakulam in support of the investigation that is going on into the suicide of Shri.Haridath. The gist of the statement is that the Sub Inspector of Police, Njarakal, while examining the place of occurrence of suicide, found a note which indicated that the petitioners were responsible for the plight in which Shri.Haridath had been placed. It is now established that the suicide note so recovered is in the handwriting of Shri.Haridath. Initially, the local police conducted the investigation into the case. But on the basis of the request by the Deputy Superintendent Shri.R.Salim, the investigation was taken B.A.2528/2013. 10 over by C.B. C.I.D. A special team including Shri.R.Salim was constituted for the purpose. They have taken statements of various witnesses including the wife of late Shri.Haridath and it is revealed from the statement of the wife of late Haridath that Shri.Haridath used to confide in her and he used to tell her that the petitioners were continuously harassing him and he was forced to do things against his conscience. It is pointed out that it has come out during investigation that the petitioners had forced the witnesses to give statements to Shri.Haridath in relation to the Sampath Murder Case so as to falsely implicate a few persons and that became evident from the subsequent statements given by them to the investigating agency investigating the suicide of Shri.Haridath. Manipulations and fabrication of materials are quite evident from the various materials collected by the investigating agency and it is contended that the claim of the petitioners that they are innocent cannot be accepted. B.A.2528/2013. 11 8. Subsequently a memo has been filed by the same Investigating Officer elaborating on the progress made in the case regarding the suicide of Shri.Haridath and enclosing various documents. 9. The wife of late Haridath has filed Crl.M.A. 4429 of 2013 seeking to get herself impleaded in the proceedings. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Director General of Prosecution for the State, learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the wife of Shri.Haridath were heard in detail. The Addl.D.G.P. made available the Case Diary for perusal of this court. 11. Before going into the merits of the rival contentions, this court must remind itself that the court is dealing with only an anticipatory bail application and the scope of enquiry is considerably limited. This court will not be justified in going elaborately into the merits of the case or assessing the probative value of the various items of B.A.2528/2013. 12 evidence collected by the investigating agency. Court's enquiry is limited to find out whether there is a prima facie case or whether sufficient grounds exist to deny pre-arrest bail. 12. After having perused the voluminous CD made available by the Addl.D.G.P. and after having considered the contentions, there seems to be considerable substance in the grievance voiced by the petitioners. 13. It was on the basis of the orders issued by this court that a Special Team was constituted to investigate into the custodial death of Sampath. The petitioners were members of the team so constituted and infact the first petitioner was to lead the investigation. Things went on well until they submitted a list of persons who were sought to be arrayed as accused. When that list indicated the involvement of two I.P.S. Officers, the events took a dramatic turn. From the file, it could be seen that the claim made by the petitioners that Shri.Nandakumar Nair, the then Head of Branch of C.B.I., B.A.2528/2013. 13 Thiruvananthapuram, was annoyed and infuriated and then he, thereafter began to meddle with the investigation is quite true. The immediate response was the induction of Shri.Haridath as the Chief of the investigating team with a direction to the petitioners to assist and aid him. That was challenged before this court, and this court upheld the appointment on coming to know about the proven record of Shri.Haridath. Investigation continued under the leadership of Shri.Haridath and the statements of witnesses were collected. It is seen from the records that arrest warrants were procured against certain accused persons including the two I.P.S. Officers, but it was not executed as against the two I.P.S. Officers. It may be noticed here that while approving the appointment of Shri.Haridath as the Chief Investigating Officer, certain positive directions were issued by this court and it is also significant to notice that this court had occasion to notice the unnecessary interference that were being made from certain quarters which was strongly deprecated by this court. Considering B.A.2528/2013. 14 the various aspects, this court also felt that the investigation shall be under the supervision of the C.J.M. Anticipating that there may be further disturbances caused, this court also issued a direction that the present team of investigation shall not be dislocated or changed withouts orders of this court. 14. The order of this court was challenged before the Apex Court. But the Apex Court did not find it necessary to interfere on merits, except to say that the investigation may be carried on under the supervision of a Joint Director of C.B.I. and also it shall be in accordance with the C.B.I. Manual. 15. On a perusal of the CD made available, it is seen that the C.B.I. got the handle they were looking for and thereafter, things began to take a different shape. It is seen from the records that Shri.Haridath initially resisted the dictates of the two officers, namely, Shri.O.P.Galhotra and Shri.S.K.Peshin, it did not last long. B.A.2528/2013. 15 16. As noticed, the petitioners were thereafter transferred and disciplinary actions were initiated against them. The result was total dismay and disruption caused to the investigation of Sampath Murder Case. Even though this court had specifically indicated that none in the team constituted shall be disturbed, little heed seen to have been paid to that direction and the C.B.I. flouted the orders of this Court with impunity. One fails to understand how they could get away with such blatant violations. The less said the better. 17. The petitioners would say that after the induction of the above two officers, the petitioners were disassociated from the investigation, and from 3.9.2011 onwards, they had almost no role to play in the investigation. The petitioners have categorically averred and have even challenged the C.B.I. to produce documents to show that after 3.9.2011 they had any role to play in the investigation. This specific allegation in the petition remains un-controverted. B.A.2528/2013. 16 18. From the CD, it is seen that the allegations against the petitioners are that they were not following the instructions contained in the C.B.I. Manual and carrying on investigation at their own whims and fancies. They were not heeding to the orders by the superior officers and they were indisciplined in their conduct. What could be gathered from the materials made available is that violation of the instructions of the C.B.I. Manual, as far as the petitioners are concerned, is confined to non-furnishing of reports to the superior officers and also not heeding to the instructions given by the superior officers. It is to be noticed that there is nothing to show that the petitioners were acting contrary to the instructions issued by this court while disposing of the writ petition filed by Shri.Murukeshan, the brother of late Sampath as per judgment dated 25.5.2010 and also the order in I.A.16944 of 2010. This court, while disposing of the said writ petition, had adverted to the materials available in the CD and the items of evidence against various accused persons and felt B.A.2528/2013. 17 that it is only appropriate in the fitness of things that the investigation be handed over to the C.B.I. 19. Disturbingly enough, in the CD in relation to the suicide of Shri. Haridath, the dubious conduct and attitude of Shri.Nandakumar Nair is seen reflected. He suddenly felt that the petitioners were incompetent and were not suitable for investigation of Sampath custody murder case. He kept on issuing memos to the petitioners and it is clear that he was bend upon seeing that they did not function in terms of the orders issued by this court. He did not stop by issuing memos and even went to the extent of making adverse entries in their Confidential Report. This is only one of the aspects of the case. 20. The conduct of Shri.Nandakumar Nair in trying to protect Shri.Mohammed Yasim is quite evident. He does not stop at that and even goes to the extent of making statements criticizing the orders passed by this Court. He has the audacity to state that this court had made false statements in its order. It is a shame on C.B.I. B.A.2528/2013. 18 to have such officer at the helm of affairs. It would appear that it is he who is to be disciplined and bridled. 21. The records indicate that Shri.Haridath, at no point of time, had made any complaint regarding the acts committed by the petitioners to any of the superior officers. True, this court is not overlooking the various statements given by the witnesses including the wife of Shri.Haridath attributing role to the petitioners to the suicide of Shri.Haridath. According to Smt.Nisha, the wife of late Haridath, Haridath used to confide in her and she was given to understand that the petitioners had gone out of way to see that persons are implicated and Shri.Haridath had implicit faith in them and he never knew that he was being cheated and that he was being taken for a ride. By the time he realized, it was too late and according to Smt.Nisha, the petitioners are responsible for the death of Shri.Haridath. 22. It is also to be noticed that some of the witnesses who were examined by the investigating team in B.A.2528/2013. 19 the Sampath Murder case have now been examined and they say that the statements given by them to the investigating officer in Sampath Murder case was under threat, duress and coercion by the petitioners and they were made to say facts contrary to the true state of affairs. 23. It is difficult to believe that if as a matter of fact the petitioners had indulged in such questionable activities and it had come to the knowledge of Shri.Haridath, he was totally helpless. One has to remember that he was depicted as one of the bold and strong officers of the C.B.I. Surely and certainly, if what is stated is true, he would have taken immediate steps to have them disassociated. In fact, the statement of Smt.Nisha to the investigating officer in the present case shows that after the induction of the two officers, namely, Shri.O.P.Galhotra and Shri.S.K.Peshin, there was pressure on Shri.Haridath to disassociate the petitioners from investigation and the statement goes to the extent of saying that thereafter Shri.Haridath did not contact the petitioners. The said B.A.2528/2013. 20 statement of Smt.Nisha is in consonance with the claim of the petitioners that from 3.9.2011 onwards they had no role to play in the investigation. Again, after 3.9.2011 if the petitioners had not much role to play, it escapes ones understanding how they could be accused of manipulating the witnesses in Sampath Murder Case. Further, there is absolutely no materials to show that the petitioners had any ill-motive to array various persons as accused in Sampath Murder Case. 24. The Investigating Officer in charge of case relating to the suicide of Haridath also did not lag behind. He was busy taking statements of witnesses who had been examined in Sampath Murder Case and getting statements from them contrary to the one given by them earlier. The conduct of the C.B. C.I.D. was challenged before this court in Crl.M.C. 3688 of 2012. This court, after adverting to the various aspects, quashed the proceedings against the petitioners. It is true that the said order is under challenge 21 and is pending before the Apex Court. The Apex court has also granted permission to go on with the investigation. 25. The attempt is very clear. Apart from torpedoing the investigation in Sampath Murder Case at the behest of C.B.I., the C.B. C.I.D. is busy cooking up evidence to rope in the petitioners. Both the organizations have targeted the petitioners. One cannot escape from noting that while C.B.I. is trying to dilute the evidence in Sampath Murder Case, the C.B. C.I.D is busy in creating evidence against the petitioners. 26. It is significant to notice that the final report filed in Sampath Murder Case has been rejected by the court concerned which would speak for itself. 27. The petitioners stand accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 182, 194, 195, 195A and 306 I.P.C. On a perusal of the records, it is extremely difficult to understand how the above provisions are attracted to the facts of the case. Anyhow, a deep analysis of this aspect is not warranted at this point of time. B.A.2528/2013. 22 28. The materials on record indicate that the petitioners have been questioned at length and they have been co-operating with the investigation. 29. In the decision reported in **Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra** (AIR 2011 SC 312), the factors and parameters that are to be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail application was laid down. The relevant provision reads as follows: “122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; B.A.2528/2013. 23 iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over-implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; B.A.2528/2013. 24 viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 30. Highlighting the approach of the court in dealing with bail applications, and also cautioning the courts which deal with such applications, the Apex Court in B.A.2528/2013. 25 **Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan** (AIR 2013 SC 296) had occasion to observe as follows: “The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The Court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial.” 31. In the decision reported in **Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)** ((2012) 8 SCC 730) the Apex Court pointed out the cases in which anticipatory bail may not be granted. 32. Bearing the principles laid down in the above decisions, the question now remains to be considered is whether the prayer of the petitioners for pre-arrest bail can be granted. They are accused of having forced the witnesses to give false statements to Shri.Haridath while Shri.Haridath was investigating Sampath Murder Case and B.A.2528/2013. 26 thereby forcing Shri.Haridath to reach wrong conclusions. Of course, they are also accused of being indisciplined. Indiscipline is not very relevant for the present purpose. But one should notice that at no point of time Shri.Haridath had complained to any of the higher authorities about the conduct of the petitioners. If as a matter of fact, Shri.Haridath did come to know that the petitioners have misled him or are providing wrong informations to him, nothing prevented him from approaching this court or atleast the CJM court concerned and seeking appropriate directions. No materials whatsoever is seen among the records to show that Shri.Haridath at any point of time had complained to any of the authorities about the conduct of the petitioners. 33. Much could be said about the attitude displayed by the C.B.I. even after orders were passed by this court. One is only to observe that the conduct of the C.B.I. is very disturbing and objectionable and the manner in which the C.B.I. gone about upsetting the investigation B.A.2528/2013. 27 done in Sampath Murder Case ending up with the rejection of the final report filed in Sampath Murder Case by the court concerned is indeed alarming. 34. As rightly pointed out by the petitioners, things went on well till the two I.P.S. Officers were arrayed as accused in the Sampath Murder Case. This court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by Shri.Murukeshan, had occasion to observe about the birds of the same feather syndrome which now stands justified. The present investigation conducted by the C.B. C.I.D. seems to be equally motivated to somehow rope in the petitioners which seems to be a retaliatory measure for having the two I.P.S. Officers arrayed as accused in the Sampath Murder Case. One can only say that the conduct of the C.B.I. and C.B. C.I.D. is quite unbecoming of them and affect their credibility. One is left to wonder whether their acts are in consonance with justice. Having bestowed attention to various aspects, this petition is allowed as follows: B.A.2528/2013. 28 i) Petitioners shall surrender before the court concerned on or before 18.6.2013, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioners, shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court. ii) The court concerned may ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties for the purpose of executing the bond. iii) If the Investigating Officer in Crime No.455 of 2012 of Njarakkal Police Station, re-numbered as 351/CR/HHW-II/EKM/12 of Ernakulam Crime Branch, feels that interrogation of the petitioners is necessary, he may apply to the court concerned, and on getting permission from the said court, may conduct interrogation on such conditions imposed by that court. B.A.2528/2013. 29 iv) In case the Investigating Officer feels that the presence of the petitioners is necessary otherwise than for interrogation, he may apply to the court concerned, and the said court shall dispose of the application in accordance with law. v) Petitioners shall not leave State of Kerala without the prior permission of the court concerned. vi) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses. vii) If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled, and the court concerned may take such steps as are available to it in accordance with law. ## **P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE** sb.