Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1941 Bail Appl..No. 2530 of 2019 CRIME NO. 3500/2014 OF Kayamkulam Police Station , Alappuzha PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ARUNKUMAR @ KANNAN AGED 30 YEARS S/O UNNI, ARUNALAYAM, KANNAMPALLYBHAGOM, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.S.L.SYLAJA RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN- 688 524. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Bail Appl..No. 2530 of 2019 2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
Dated this the 27" day of May, 2019
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that he has been subsequently arrayed as an accused apart from the initially arrayed 2 accused in Crime No. offences punishable under Sections 447, 324, 326, 308 and Section 34 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution case in brief, on the basis of the First
Information Statement given by the defacto complainant/1* informant on 28.12.2014 is that two unknown assailants had attached the defacto complainant on 27.12.2014 at about 10 p.m. in the night and when his wife, daughter and mother-in-law had intervened, they were also attacked by these two assailants who could not be identified by the accused. The brief of the 1* informant contends as shown in column No.12 of Annexure-I, FIR, as against the two unknown and unidentified accused persons is as follows: “12. പ്രതികള്‍ക്ക്‌ ആവലാതിക്കാരനൊടുള്ള വിരോധം നിമിത്തം ടിയാനേയും മറ്റും ദേഹോപ്രദ്രവം ഏല്‍പിക്കണമെന്നുള്ള ഉദ്ദേശത്തോടും കരുതലോടുംകൂടി 27.12.2014 തീയതി രാത്രി 10.30 മണിക്ക്‌ ആവലാതിക്കാരനും മറ്റും താമസിച്ചുവരുന്ന കീരിക്കാട വില്ലേജില്‍ കണ്ണമ്പള്ളിഭാഗം മുറിയില്‍ മാവോലിക്കിഴക്കതില്‍ വീട്ടുമുറ്റത്ത്‌ കുറ്റകരമായി 1ഉം 2 ഉം പ്രതികള്‍ പ്രവേശിച്ച്‌ 1ആം പ്രതി ആവലാതിക്കാരനെ അപകടകരമായBail Appl..No. 2530 of 2019 3 വെട്ടുകത്തി കൊണ്ട്‌ ഇടത്‌ കൈ മസ്സില്‍ ഭാഗത്ത്‌ വെട്ടി മുറിപ്പെടുത്തിയും 2ആം ആവലാതിക്കാരനെ അപകടകരമായ കമ്പിവടികൊണ്ട്‌ ഉചിയിലും ഇരുകാല്‍പാദങ്ങളിലും പുറത്തും അടിച്ചു മുറിപെടുത്തിയും തടസ്സം പിടിച്ച ആവലാതിക്കാരന്‍െറ ഭാര്യ തങ്കമണിയെ 1ആം പ്രതി വെട്ടുകത്തികൊണ്ട്‌ ഇടതുകൈ തള്ളവിരല്‍ ഭാഗത്ത്‌ വെട്ടി മുറിപ്പെടുത്തിയും 2ആം പ്രതി ഇടതുകൈമുട്ടിനു മുകളിലും തലക്കും കമ്പിവടികൊണ്ട്‌ അടിച്ച്‌ മുറിപ്പെടുത്തിയും ആവലാതിക്കാരിയുടെ മകള്‍ കിങ്ങിണിയെ 1ആ പ്രതി വെട്ടുകത്തി കൊണ്ട്‌ ഇടതുകൈപത്തി ഭാഗത്ത്‌ വെട്ടി മുറിപ്പെടുത്തിയും ആവലാതിക്കാരന്‍െറ അമ്മായിഅമ്മ ഓമനയെ 1ആം പ്രതി വെട്ടുകത്തി കൊണ്ട്‌ വലതുകൈപത്തിഭാഗത്ത്‌ വെട്ടി വിരലുകള്‍ മുറിയുന്നതിന്‌ ഇടവരുത്തിയും പ്രതികള്‍ പരസ്പരം ഉത്സാഹികളും സഹായികളുമായി പ്രവര്‍ത്തിച്ചു uN എന്നുള്ളത്‌.
3. On 29.12.2014, the wife of the defacto complainant has given a
statement before the investigating officer in which also it is stated that the two assailants who attacked them are not known/identified by them and that there was a 3“ person was waiting in a motor cycle and that two assailants had flood away in the motor cycle of the 3" person. The name or identity of the 3" person is also not stated in the said Section 161 statement given by the defacto complainant's wife. It is thereafter, on 07.04.2015, the defacto complainant's wife has given an additional Section 161 statement before the Investigating Officer stating that one of the two assailants is Kannan. It has to be borne in mind that even in the First Information Statement dated 28.12.2014 given by the defacto complainant which led to the registration of Annexure-I FIR, what is mainly alleged by the defacto complainant as against the petitioner (Arunkumar@Kannan) is that the petitioner has some prior enmity against the defacto complainant, as the
defacto complainant had sided his brother-in-law when the petitioner hadBail Appl..No. 2530 of 2019 4 quarreled with him and that he suspects that the present attack on him and his family may have been done by the henchmen of Kannan (petitioner) in retaliation to the abovesaid incidents. It has not been stated by the defacto complainant that one among the two assailants is the petitioner (Kannan).
4. On this basis, it is argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that going by the very case set up by the defacto complainant in the First Information Statement that the defacto complainant was very much knowing the petitioner (Kannan) and that therefore still he has stated that two assailants who attacked him on 29.12.2014 are unknown persons, who could not be identified by him and the only allegation as against the petitioner is that the defacto complainant suspects that the attack could have been made at the instance of Kannan. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that even the wife of the defacto complainant in her statement given on 29.12.2014 has not stated that the petitioner is one among the two assailants and she has also repeated that the two assailants are not known or identified by the defacto complainant or his family members. Hence it is pointed out that the subsequent version given by the defacto complainant's wife on 07.04.2015 that the petitioner/Kannan is one among the two assailants who caused the attack is a false statement and cannot be believed upon as it is a major divergence to the case set up by the prosecution.
5. The learned Prosecutor submits that the allegations raised in Bail Appl..No. 2530 of 2019 5
this crime are very serious and the defacto complainant, his wife, daughter and mother-in-law, have all been attacked and the injured have suffered serious injuries and the subsequent offences as per Section 326 and 308 has also been added. Further, it is pointed out by the prosecution that irrespective as to the divergences of the case of the defacto complainant's wife, the investigating officer is obliged to dispassionately conduct the investigation and the role of the petitioner is seriously suspected and that unvarnished truth of the matter has to be brought out by the investigation etc. so this Court may not grant anticipatory bail, it is urged.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is
ordered that it is for the petitioner to immediately personally appear before the investigating officer in relation to the abovesaid crime for interrogation purposes without any further delay, at any rate, by 10 a.m. on any day on or before 07.06.2019. The petitioner will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the interrogation process. After completing the above interrogation process, the investigating officer will produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned in relation to the crime and the petitioner's application for grant of bail may be considered and orders passed on the same day by the learned Magistrate, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the learned Prosecutor and also taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case.
With these observations and directions, the above Bail Bail Appl..No. 2530 of 2019 6 Application will stand disposed of. sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE SKS