Hashim Shaji vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J.

Anticipatory bail plea at the instance of accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.137/2023 of Aryanad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram is the crux of this petition, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents.

The prosecution allegation is that at 9 p.m on 05.02.2023, due to animosity towards the defacto complainant, who came to the police station with his friend Vipin to file a complaint, accused 1 to 20 formed into unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, with knowledge that they are members of the said assembly, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted him with intention to cause grievous hurt to the defacto complainant, when he came out of the police station after lodging the complaint. The specific allegation is that the 1st accused had used abusive words against the defacto complainant and hit on his mouth with the handle of a hammer kept by the 1st accused. The 2nd accused torn the T shirt of the defacto complainant and hit on his chest. Accused 3 and 4 forcefully taken him along with 16 other persons and all of them jointly manhandled him brutally. Thereby, he sustained very serious injuries, including fractures. Thus the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 323, 324 and 326 of IPC.

While pressing for anticipatory bail to the petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and the allegations are false. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners pressed for grant of anticipatory bail with offer to co-operate with the investigation.

Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed bail pointing out the seriousness of the offences and also serious fractures noted in the wound certificate as under; viz., contusion of left side of upper lip, tenderness on left upper canine teeth, abrasion on the left side of ear. One tooth in the upper jaw was broken and loosened.

In this matter, attack against the defacto complaint was when he was at the police station to lodge a complaint. That shows the seriousness of the offences. It is noted with anxiety that the petitioners are followers of the CPI(M) party, ruling the State and they have no respect to the law and order of the State. The tendency to attack the persons who reach the police station by forming into unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons is a very serious matter and the same pointing towards anarchy. The prosecution records would reveal that the petitioners herein attacked the defacto complainant and thereby he sustained serious injuries herein above extracted. In such a case, arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of weapons are absolutely necessary to accomplish meaningful investigation and eventful prosecution. Therefore, grant of anticipatory bail in this crime would stall the investigation. As such, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner.

Hence the petition stands dismissed.