Asrudheen K And Ors vs State Of Kerala

The applicant is the 5th accused in Crime No. 457/2020 of the Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 326, 307 and 120B r/w Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.

Prosecution case in brief is that the applicant along with the others, allegedly hatched a conspiracy to murder the defacto complainant, and in furtherance of the common intention, the applicant and the other accused trespassed into the tea shop of the defacto complainant on 27.06.2020 between 06.30 a.m and 06.45 a.m, and thereafter assaulted him with dangerous weapons like swords and caused grievous injuries to him, attempting to commit murder.

The applicant states that the allegations are not true. The First Information Statement of the defacto complainant, would indicate that on 26.06.2020 between 06.30 a.m - 06.45 am, two persons names Vishnu and Raju, both, well known to the defacto complainant and having previous enmity towards him, came to his tea shop in a Tata Sumo car and on a motorcycle and allegedly attacked him with dangerous weapons like sword and inflicted grievous injuries on him and attempted to commit murder. He sustained a fracture of the elbow joint and other serious injuries. The other persons who accompanied the aforesaid Vishnu and Raju, were identifiable. Subsequently, the version takes a turn and the present accused are arrested and Vishnu and Raju are deleted from the array of accused. CCTV footages are relied upon by the investigation officer to identify the present culprits including the applicant. The present allegation is that accused Nos. 1 to 3 were armed with dangerous weapons like sword and attacked the defacto complainant and attempted to commit murder. The applicant who is the 5th accused also had accompanied them and joined them in furtherance of common intention.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the entire investigation is flawed and the incorporation of the applicant as accused is also assailant of defacto complainant without any substantial basis. The defacto complainant had initially identified two persons named Vishnu and Raju who were known to him, and reasons to assault him. This itself would belie the base of the prosecution case. The version of the de facto complainant is not that he had not identified his assailants or that they were some identifiable persons. Specific version of the defacto complainant is that he had identified the assailant with clarity, and therefore, the applicant could not be satisfactorily incorporated as the assailant. It is also pertinent to know that the prosecution version now is that the applicants were members of SDPI and that the defacto complainant and others being members of RSS were in inimical terms. The applicants did not have any previous enmity towards the defacto complainant and the allegation now is that they had attacked the defacto complainant,solely due to political reasons. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were already granted bail after their arrest. The applicant who is the 5th accused is apprehending arrest. There is no specific overtact attributed to him apart from the fact that he was also a member of the gang that attacked the defacto complainant. The version of the defacto complainant is riddled with suspicion and that the identity of the applicant as one of the assailants is doubtful. He has no criminal antecedents also.

Hence, this application is allowed. The applicant shall surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks from today. After interrogation, in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence witnesses.

(iii) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period.

In case of the breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail.