Mathai vs State Of Kerala

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioners are accused 1 to 6 in the case registered as Crime No.4/2018 of Panamaram Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324 and 427 read with 149 IPC. The prosecution case is that on 01.01.2018, at about 17.30 hours, the accused together criminally trespassed into the shop of the de facto complainant at the place Neervaram and that the first accused inflicted injury on the de facto complainant with a knife and that the second accused inflicted injury on him by beating him with an iron rod and that the other accused destroyed the articles in the shop causing a loss of Rs.1,50,000/- to the de facto complainant.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

There is allegation against the first petitioner, the first accused in the case, that he was armed with a knife and that he inflicted injury on the de facto complainant with a knife. There is also allegation against the second petitioner, the second accused in the case, that he used an iron rod to cause injury to the de facto complainant. Such acts have been allegedly committed by these petitioners after trespassing into the shop of the de facto complainant. Therefore, prima facie, the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC is attracted against these petitioners. Considering the nature of the acts allegedly committed by these petitioners and the weapons they were carrying, I find that the discretion of the Court cannot be exercised in their favour to grant them pre-arrest bail. It is also to be noted in this connection that the weapons allegedly used by these petitioners have to be recovered and custodial interrogation of them would be necessary for that purpose.

However, the case against the other petitioners stands on a different footing. The allegation against them is that they caused damage to the articles in the shop of the de facto complainant and caused a loss of Rs.1,50,000/- to him. There is no specific allegation against these petitioners that they used any weapons to attack the de facto complainant. Considering the role of these petitioners in the incident, I find that the discretion of the court can be exercised in their favour to grant them pre- arrest bail.

In the result, the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the first and the second petitioners is rejected. The prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the other petitioners is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

i. Petitioners 3 to 6 shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of their arrest by police in Crime No.4/2018 of Panamaram Police Station.

ii. Petitioners 3 to 6 shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 9.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. on all Saturdays for a period of three months after being released on bail.

iii.Petitioners 3 to 6 shall not in any manner intimidate or influence the de facto complainant or other prosecution witnesses in the case.

iv. Petitioners 3 to 6 shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court concerned.

v. Petitioners 3 to 6 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him in writing to do so.

vi. If any of the petitioners violates any of the conditions of bail, the jurisdictional court is at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law without any further orders of this court.