AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
31 paragraphs · 675 wordsRaja Vijayaraghavan V, J
The above captioned application seeking anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( “‘Code†for
short) by the 3rd accused in Crime No.606 of 2019 of the Chevayur Police Station registered under Sections 326, 307 r/w 120B of the IPC.
On 12.10.2019, the taxi auto rickshaw owned by a certain Shaji, the injured in the instant crime, was taken on hire by an individual. When the
autorickshaw reached Thayyil Thazham, two persons who were following the autorickshaw on a bike, intercepted the vehicle and attacked the driver
with swords causing injuries. The passenger is also alleged to have attacked the driver with a knuckle duster. The injured person was taken to the
hospital by a passerby. Initially no one was aware of the identity of the accused and hence exact details of the assailants were not furnished. Only two
persons were arrayed as accused in the FIR. In the Course of investigation it was revealed that the petitioner was the person who had hired the
autorickshaw. A report was submitted arraying the petitioner as the third accused.
Sri.E.A.Haris, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached the Court of Session and by
order dated 07.08.2020, he was granted an order of pre arrest bail. The said order was set aside by this Court by Annexure-1 order in
Crl.M.C.No.4051 of 2020. The petitioner thereafter approached the Court of Session and filed another application seeking pre arrest bail and the same
was dismissed by Annexure-2 order. The petitioner would contend that in the earlier records there was no mention about the presence of the
petitioner or the fact that the petitioner herein was armed with a weapon. The only allegation was that accused nos.1 and 2 were armed with weapons
and had attacked the victim causing injuries. He would then submit that the crime was registered in the year 2019 and the accused nos.1, 2, 4 and 5
have already surrendered and they were later released on bail. According to the learned counsel the victim has modified his statement and it is in the
said circumstances that now serious accusations are levelled against the petitioner herein.
The learned Public Prosecutor has very strenuously opposed the prayer. She would refer to the medical records and would contend that very grave
injuries were inflicted by the accused. It is submitted that the weapon used by the petitioner has not been recovered till date and the investigation
insofar as the petitioner is concerned is not completed.
I have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have carefully evaluated the materials. While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, this Court has to strike a balance and it has to be ensured that no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation. At
the same time harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused will also have to be avoided. The wound certificates prima facie show
that serious injuries were sustained by the victim at the hands of the accused.There are materials which link the petitioner with the crime. At this stage
it cannot be said that the allegations against the petitioner are frivolous or that he has been falsely implicated. A detailed probe into the veracity of the
allegations at this point of time is not warranted. Suffice to say, considering the nature of the allegations,the role assigned to the applicant and the
severity of the injuries inflicted, and the stage of investigation, the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail
At this stage Sri. Haris, the learned counsel, submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation. I direct the petitioner to
surrender before the Investigating officer forthwith. After interrogation, he shall be produced before the Court having jurisdiction. If an application for
regular bail is preferred, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously and on its merits.
This application is dismissed.
