Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 3499 OF 2024 CRIME NO.20/2024 OF Chavakkad Police Station, Thrissur PETITIONER/S: FAVAS AGED 31 YEARS S/O. R.V. ABDUL KAREM, RAYAMMARAKKAR VEETIL, CHAVAKKAD, PUNNA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680506 BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680506 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.S.DIAS,J ====================== ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of April, 2024
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioner is the fifth accused in Crime
No.20/2024 of Chavakkad Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (four in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 & 294(b) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(‘IPC’, for short).
3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on
07.01.2024, at around 02.45 hours, the accused, in prosecution of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the de-facto complainant, while he was riding a motorcycle, and the first accused hit him with an iron rod by shouting obscene words at him. The de-facto complainant sustained an injury on his head. Had the de-facto complainant not twisted his head, certainly he would have lost his life. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
4. Heard; Sri. Abhilash K.N, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S Hrithwik., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of the First Information Report [FIR] would reveal that the offence under Section 308 will not be attracted against the petitioner, since the specific overt act is only alleged against the first accused. Therefore, the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application. He contended that the investigation in the case is still in progress. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that, it was the first accused who assaulted the de-facto complainant with an iron rod and inflicted injury on his head.
7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the
facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on comprehending the fact that, it was the first accused who caused injuries to the de-facto complainant and there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner for having committed the offence under Section 308 of the IPC, I am of the view that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today.
(ii) In the event of the petitioner’s arrest, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each;
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.
(iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;
(v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before
the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week from the date of his release on bail. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before said court within the said period; (vi)The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail;
(vii) In case of violation of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. (viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below.
(ix) Needless to mention, it would be well within the
powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) And another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
(x) The observations made in this order are only for
the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts. sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE sks/25.04.24