Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2013 1ST SRAVANA, 1935 Bail Appl.No. 4934 of 2013 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1336/2013 OF PARIPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER/ ACCUSED : ----------------------- V.S.RAJU, AGED 4 YEARS, S/O. VALSALAN, ARANAVILAVEEDU, PARIPALLY P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENTS/ STATE/ COMPLAINANT : ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARIPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RKM S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.4934 of 2013 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2013 ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1336 of 2013 of Paripally Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner has filed the above application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code").
2. Allegation is that petitioner and other three accused, all of them together, pursuant to a common intention, conjointly assaulted the de facto complainant and caused him severe injuries. De facto complainant sustained among other injuries fracture of his shoulder bone and also maxilla. Investigation of the crime is still in progress.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the allegations imputed against him are false and, in fact, the de facto complainant was the assailant. Petitioner sustained injuries in the assault on him by de facto complainant and he underwent hospitalisation and treatment, is the further submission of counsel. Opposing the application learned Public Prosecutor submits that the materials gathered by investigating agency, prima facie, disclose complicity of petitioner in the grave offences imputed, and petitioner, who B.A.No.4934 o”
2. sustained serious injuries is yet to be discharged from hospital. This is not a fit case where petitioner can be extended pre-arrest bail, is the further submission of learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Case diary has been produced for my perusal. Perusing the case diary with reference to the submissions made by counsel on both sides and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented in the case, I find there is enough room to suspect complicity of petitioner in the offences imputed and this is not a fit case where he can be extended the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner requested for an opportunity to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with investigation, fixing date and time to do so by an Order of this court. Considering the request so made while declining pre-arrest bail, the following directions are issued :- In case petitioner appear before the investigating officer at 10.00.a.m.on 27.07.2013, after his interrogation, in the event of his arrest in the crime, he shall be produced before the magistrate without delay. On such production, application for bail, if any moved by petitioner with advance notice to B.A.No.4934 o”
3. Assistant Public Prosecutor shall be considered by the magistrate expeditiously, and disposed on its merits in accordance with law. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE True Copy P.A.to Judge RKM