Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1942 CRIME NO.605/2020 OF Tanur Police Station, Malappuram PETITIONER/S: 1 RAMSHEEK AGED 36 YEARS, SON OF UMMERKOYA, POTTINTEKATH HOUSE, NEAR PATHIRIYAL, VAZHAKKATHERUV, TANUR PO, 2 ANSAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O UMMERKOYA, POTTINTEKATH HOUSE, NEAR PATHIRIYAL, VAZHAKKATHERU, TANUR PO, 3 SAKEER @ SAKEER HUSSAIN AGED 32 YEARS, S/O UMMERKOYA, POTTINTEKATH HOUSE, NEAR PATHIRIYAL, VAZHAKKATHERUV, TANUR PO, BY ADVS. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI SMT.FERHA AZEEZ RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER TANUR POLICE STATION, OTHER PRESENT: SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Dated this the 30th day of October 2020 This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. The applicants are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.605/2020 of Thanur Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.07.2020 at about 9.45 PM, the applicants owing to the previous enmity due to some family dispute towards the defacto complainant, who is the Uncle of the applicants, wrongfully restrained him and assaulted in furtherance of the common intention and he sustained grievous injuries. The applicants apprehend arrest, and therefore, approach this Court for anticipatory bail.
4. The applicants state that they are innocent and
that there was only a scuffle in which the defacto complainant sustained some injuries, but none of the applicants was instrumental in assaulting the defacto complainant as alleged.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the
1st accused had attacked the defacto complainant with an iron rod causing fracture of his knee joint and other accused had also joined in assaulting the defacto complainant. It is however admitted that the applicants do not have any criminal antecedents, but the weapon which was allegedly used by the 1st applicant will have to be recovered for which his custodial interrogation is essential.
7. Considering the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the 1st accused is not entitled to a pre-arrest bail, since he has to be interrogated for the purpose of recovery of the weapon, which he had allegedly used to assault the defacto
complainant causing grievous injury. The accused 2 and 3 are however entitled to a pre-arrest bail since there is no specific overt act attributed to them for causing grievous hurt.
8. In the result, the bail application is allowed in part and the applicants are directed to surrender
before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of their being arrested, applicants 2 and 3 shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:
(i) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;
(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and
(iii) During the bail period, they shall not get involved in any similar offences.
In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional
court.
9. In the event of the 1st applicant being arrested,
after interrogation and recovery, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the very same day. Sd/- dkr ASHOK MENON JUDGE