Arunkumar A. @ Kuthira Kuku vs State Of Kerala

Shircy V, J

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 1437 of 2021 of Valiathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 367 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, this petitioner, who is arraigned as the 3rd accused, has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The prosecution allegation in brief is as follows:

On a previous occasion, the residential house of the defacto complainant was damaged as certain persons have thrown country bombs towards the house. This petitioner along with the other accused on a misunderstanding that the defacto complainant had committed the said illegal activities, abducted him on 27.7.2021 at about 22.15 Hrs. in a car and took him to a lonely place. On the way, accused Nos. 2 and 3 had slapped him on his cheek and fisted him and caused injuries. When they reached at the place of occurrence, he was dragged out of the car and this petitioner, the 3rd accused, had beaten him with an iron rod aiming to his head. But it fell on the hand of the defacto complainant and caused fracture. They have also hacked him with a deadly weapon, a chopper, and caused grievous injuries to him including fracture, thereby this petitioner along with the other accused have committed the aforesaid offences.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in the case at the instigation of the defacto complainant and his brother who were arrested by the police in another criminal case. In fact the defacto complainant is a person who is engaged in criminal activities and due to his vengeance towards this petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has absolutely no connection with the alleged incident and he has no participation along with the other accused so as to kidnap him or to cause injuries as alleged by the prosecution. But he apprehends arrest and hence was compelled to move this application before this court.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that serious allegations are against this petitioner. This petitioner is the person who had caused fracture to the defacto complainant by beating him with an iron rod. The weapon used by him has not been recovered and all the other accused persons are absconding. So, the investigation could not be proceeded with in full swing and granting of bail at this stage will definitely hamper the smooth course of investigation.

The offences alleged against this petitioner appears to be grave and serious in nature. A perusal of the FIR itself would show that this petitioner had active participation in abducting the defacto complainant as well in causing grievous injuries including fracture. There is also specific allegation against him to the effect that he had used an iron rod to attack the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant was not having any weapon with him at the time of the alleged incident. When the nature of the accusations levelled against this petitioner and the other accused are grave and serious in nature, definitely, the investigating agency would require time to probe into the details. They have to collect the weapon used by the accused including this petitioner to proceed with the case and for the same, definitely, custodial interrogation appears to be quite necessary. That be so, I do not find any justification to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and to grant pre-arrest bail as sought for.

Hence, dismissed.