Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 7634 OF 2022 [CRIME NO.1216/2022 OF KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM] PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 DEEPU K.N AGED 22 YEARS S/O KUNJUMON, MATHIRAMPALLY HOUSE, KAPPIKADU, KALLARA P. O MUTTUCHIRA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 691599. 2 SOORAJ MANIKANTAN AGED 27 YEARS S/O MANIKANTAN, MANACKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDAR KARA, KALLARA P.O MUTTUCHIRA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 691599. 3 AJITH P.K AGED 22 YEARS S/O P.K KUTTAPPAN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, MUNDAR KARA, KALLARA P.O 4 ARUN KUNJACHAN AGED 22 YEARS S/ O KUNJACHAN, MATTATHIL HOUSE, MUNDAR KARA, KALLARA P.O 5 JISHNU VYASAN AGED 24 YEARS S/O VYASAN, MARATHUMTHARA HOUSE, MUNDAR KARA, KALLARA. P.O
6 AKHIL P BAIJU AGED 25 YEARS S/O BAIJU POTHANMYALIL HOUSE, MUNDAR KARA., KALLARA P.O BY ADVS. MANSOOR.B.H. SAKEENA BEEGUM RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686604. PP SRI.NOUSHAD K.A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ......….................................. B.A.No.7634 of 2022 ….................................. Dated this the 6 th day of October, 2022
ORDER
This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2, 6, 3, 7 & 8 in Crime
No.1216/2022 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 427 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 12.08.2022 at about
6 p.m., the accused, due to a previous enmity, trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and assaulted him using a stick and tied a chain around his neck while the other accused beat on the chest of the defacto complainant and his family members. The accused also destroyed a glass pane of a cupboard and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Sri.Mansoor B.H., the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are false
and that the incident as alleged had never occurred. It was further submitted that petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed. The learned counsel further submitted that the matter is almost settled between the parties and that in such circumstances, denying them anticipatory bail would be highly prejudicial.
5. Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail and submitted that petitioners are alleged to have committed a serious offence, which requires custodial interrogation.
6. I have perused the statement of the defacto complainant and have also appreciated the rival contentions.
7. On a consideration of the submissions made across the
Bar, I am of the view that the allegations against the first petitioner are serious in nature and specific overt acts have been alleged against him. However, allegations against the remaining accused do not indicate any serious injuries having been inflicted by them.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid consideration, I am of the view that as far as the first petitioner (A1) is concerned,
his pre-arrest bail application is liable to be rejected. However, as regards petitioners 2 to 6 are concerned, they are entitled to be protected by a pre-arrest bail, since there are no specific allegations of a serious nature as against them.
9. Accordingly, this application as regards petitioners 2 to 6 is allowed on the following conditions:
(a) Petitioners 2 to 6 shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 13.10.2022 and shall subject themselves to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer
proposes to arrest petitioners 2 to 6, then, they shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioners 2 to 6 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.
(d) Petitioners 2 to 6 shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence or contact the defacto complainant or his family members;
(e) Petitioners 2 to 6 shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail.
(f) Petitioners 2 to 6 shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.
10. In case of violation of any of the above conditions,
the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
11. Notwithstanding the above, this Court notices
allegations of a serious nature against the first accused. Taking note of the nature of allegations, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the first petitioner is essential for the purpose of investigation.
12. Accordingly, if the first petitioner surrenders before
the Investigating Officer within a period of ten days from today, he shall be subjected to interrogation. Thereafter, if the Investigating Officer proceeds to arrest the first petitioner, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, without undue delay and if any application for bail is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, this bail application is dismissed and as relating to petitioners 2 to 6, the bail application shall stand allowed. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/06/10/2022