Kiran Krishna vs State Of Kerala

Viju Abraham, J

Application for anticipatory bail.

Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1074 of 2022 of Anthikkad Police Station, Thrissur District registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution allegation is that, the accused attacked the defacto complainant with an iron rod, pulled him down and abused him.

The petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the above said crime. The mother of the defcto complainant is an Ayurvedic Doctor and the accused has raised a complaint against her that licence number shown by her is that of another doctor in Alappuzha, and due to the same, the defacto complainant was not in good terms with the accused and the defacto complainant and others attacked the accused on 12.09.2022 at a public place and he sustained injuries in the alleged incident, but a false complaint has been registered against him.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the petitioner attempted to attack the defacto complainant with an iron rod and hit on his shoulder and he sustained injuries. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the 2nd accused is involved in 6 other cases.

I have considered the bail application of the petitioner along with accused Nos.1 and 3 and I have rejected the bail application of the petitioner as per Annexure A order but granted bail to accused Nos. 1 and 3. As regard the petitioner is concerned, he was directed to surrender before the investigating officer and it was further directed that on such surrender, after interrogation, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the very same day and the learned Magistrate was directed to consider the bail application if any moved, preferably on the very same day. Petitioner submits that he did not comply with the directions in Annexure A order due to his physical illness and was out of station in connection with employment. The instruction given by the police revealed the active role of the petitioner and his involvement in other crimes. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to take a different view from that was taken in Annexure A order and the bail application is accordingly dismissed. Taking into consideration the contention of the petitioner that he could not surrender before the learned Magistrate due to his physical illness and was out of station in connection with employment, 10 days time from today is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and if he complies with the same within the extended time granted, all other directions in Annexure A order shall be made applicable to the petitioner.

The anticipatory bail application is disposed of accordingly.