Joseph and Others vs State of Kerala

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.—Petitioners are some among the accused A1 to A4, A6 and A7 in Crime No. 807 of 2013 of Sasthamcottah Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 452, 427 and 506(ii) read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. They have filed the above application for pre-arrest bail u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegation is that petitioners 1 to 3 (A1 to A3 in the crime) conjointly assaulted, with lethal weapons, the de facto complainant and caused him grievous injuries. De facto complainant is alleged to have questioned the removal of a boundary stone fixed, by the aforesaid petitioners, and, that gave rise to the gruesome incident, is the allegation. While he was at hospital after sustaining injuries in the incident, the other accused in the crime, criminally trespassed upon his house and assaulted the inmates, is the further case. Crime registered as aforesaid over the occurrence imputed is now under investigation.

Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime and, in fact, they are the victims and not assailants, is the submission of their learned counsel. Copies of some petitions produced with the application for anticipatory bail are relied by counsel to contend that over the assault made on one among the petitioners they have filed complaint before the Police and also later before the court. Learned counsel prayed for grant of discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Opposing the application, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that materials gathered by the investigating agency disclose complicity of petitioners in the grave offences imputed against them of having assaulted the de facto complainant and other members of his family. Case Diary has been produced for my perusal. After looking into the Case Diary, I find so far as against the petitioners 1 to 3, who are stated to be the assailants of de facto complainant, at this stage, there is nothing to doubt the intrinsic worth of his statement. However, with respect to the implication of other accused as having criminally trespassed into his residential building after the incident involving his assault, evidently, the information was supplied by him from what he gathered while hospitalised. So much so, I find the case against the first three petitioners has to be looked differently from that of other petitioners, who have applied for discretionary relief. From the materials placed, covered by the Case Diary, I find accused A1 to A3 are not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail as there is enough room to suspect their complicity in having conjointly assaulted the de facto complainant with deadly weapons and causing him injuries. So far as the other petitioners, A4, A6 and A7, among A4 a lady, aged 18 years, as I find that implication of those persons as accused has been made at the instance of de facto complainant over a subsequent event, after the incident giving rise to his hospitalisation, I find they can be extended in the given facts of the case the relief canvassed. So much so, in the event of arrest of petitioners 4 to 6 (A4, A6 and A7), it is ordered, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with further direction that they shall co-operate with the investigating officer for smooth completion of the investigation. Anticipatory bail applied by petitioners 1 to 3 (A1 to A3) is declined.

Petition is partly allowed.