Baby And Anr vs State Of Kerala

The applicants are accused nos 1 and 3 in Crime No.2340/2020 of Kadakkal Police Station, Kollam for having allegedly committed offences

punishable under Sections 342 294(b), 324, 326, 201, 506 r/w 34 of IPC subsequently offence under Section 323 was also added.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.8.2020 at about 8.00 p.m the defacto complainant had approached the 2nd accused seeking return of his

borrowed money and in furtherance of common intention with the other accused, the de facto complainant was wrongfully confined and hit on his right

leg by the 1st accused with a log of wood causing a fracture below the right knee and thus they committed the offence. The 3rd accused was

subsequently deleted from the array of accused. Hence, his application for bail is not sustainable. Presently, we are concerned with the application

filed by the 1st applicant/ 1st accused alone. The 2nd accused was arrested and released on bail. It is alleged that the defacto complainant had

approached the 2nd accused for sexual favours and in consequence of that, she filed a complaint before the Police. The Police were not ready to

register a crime and she had to approach the Magistrate Court with a private complaint in consequence of which Crime No.2336/2020 was registered

for offences punishable under Sections 451, 354, 506(ii) and 341 IPC against the defacto complainant herein. It is only subsequently that this crime has

been registered as a counter blast to that crime against the defacto complainant. It is also stated that there is an unreasonable and unexplained delay in

registering the FIR in this case.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor submits that the de facto complainant was

admitted in the hospital on the very same day but there was some delay in communicating his admission to the Police, and in consequence of that,

there was a delay, which has been well explained. It is also submitted that the 2nd accused had filed a complaint against the defacto complainant in

order to set up a defence against the attack on him. It was found to be a false complaint and no action was taken. Consequently, she filed a private

complaint before the Magistrate Court in consequence of which Crime No.2336/2020 was registered. It is submitted that the 1st applicant is the main

perpetrate of the crime and caused fracture injury to the defacto complainant. The weapon has not yet been recovered. Therefore, the applicant has

to be subjected to custodial interrogation and the application for anticipatory bail may be dismissed submits the learned public prosecutor.

After having heard submissions on both sides, I find that the 1st applicant is the main perpetrate of the crime, he caused grievous injury to the

defacto complainant who had gone to the house of the 2nd accused seeking return of his borrowed money. He was wrongfully confined and

assaulted. Under the circumstances, I find that the exceptional remedy of anticipatory bail can not be granted in favour of the applicant.

In the result, the application is dismissed and the 1st applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. In the event

he is being arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Court where he is at liberty to apply for a regular bail which shall be considered and

disposed of preferably on the very same day.