Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 11TH MAGHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 10556 OF 2022 CRIME NO.717/2022 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED :
ARUN A. AGED 29 YEARS S/O ASHOKAN, RESIDING AT AKHIL BHAVAN, PETTUVANTHODU, VINOBANIKETAN P.O., THOLICODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695542 BY ADVS. VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN B.ANUSREE RESHMA UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/STATE : STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
A.BADHARUDEEN, J.
-------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2023
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the petitioner who is arrayed as third accused in Crime No.717 of 2022 of Aryanad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. I have perused the Case Diary materials produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The prosecution allegation is that accused Nos.1 to 3 by name Kannan, Kuttan and Vavachi attacked the defacto complainant and thereby, the defacto ..3..
complainant sustained injuries and fracture on his head. On the above facts, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 341, 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who
canvassed anticipatory bail to the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a stranger to the occurrence and his name not stated either in the FIR or in the FIS. According to him, even as per the prosecution allegations, the third accused only beat on the shoulder of the defacto complainant and other injuries were the contribution of accused Nos.1 and 2. He also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and therefore, he is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed bail. She would submit that there is allegation against the third accused by name Vavachi, whose name ..4..
later identified as Arun, the petitioner herein, to the effect that he had used iron rod to beat the defacto complainant after sharing common intention with the other accused, who caused cut injuries on the head of the defacto complainant.
7. In order to appraise the contention raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner's name is not there in the FIR and in the FIS, I have gone through the FIS as well as the report given by the Investigating Officer. In the FIS, right from the very beginning, it has been stated that three person viz., Kannan, Kuttan and Vavachi reached the residence of the defacto complainant after sharing common intention, Kannan carried a chopper, and Vavachi carried an iron pipe. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted the defacto complainant and there is specific allegation that Vavachi beat on the left wrist and back of the defacto complainant
..5..
repeatedly along with other accused. Thus, it appears that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's name could not be found in the FIR or in the FIS is false and the learned counsel attempted to make use of non-mentioning of his name as Arun, ignoring the fact that the name Vavachi narrated in the FIS is not in relation to him. In fact, the name of the petitioner as 'Vavachi' is specifically stated in the FIS as well as in the FIR after narrating the overt acts at his instance.
8. On perusal of the wound certificate issued
from the Community Health Centre, Aryanad, it is stated that Mahesh sustained lacerated deep wound on the left side of scalp with excessive bleeding. Accordingly, he was referred to higher centre. Depressed fracture left parietal bone with pneumocephalus was the final diagnosis coupled with injuries stated in the wound certificate. Since there
..6.. is specific allegation that the petitioner herein, who is otherwise known as Vavachi, also assaulted the defacto complainant by using an iron rod, recovery of iron rod and his custodial interrogation are absolutely necessary to accomplish meaningful investigation and eventful prosecution. In such a case, grant of bail to the petitioner would hamper the investigation. Therefore, anticipatory bail to the petitioner cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition fails, and is dismissed. Sd/- A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE rkj ..7.. APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10556/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRIMINAL M.C NO. 2613/2022 BY OURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 01.12.2022