AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.3198 of 2015 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta, for having allegedly committed offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 427, 114 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:
Due to a quotation, that was given by the 1st accused to the 2nd accused, under the mistaken notion that the defacto complainant was behind the
information that was passed on to the law enforcement agencies regarding his apprehension in a narcotic case, he allegedly informed it to the 2nd
accused/applicant, who in turn engaged the remaining accused Nos.3 to 7 to assault the defacto complainant and consequently, on 21.12.2015 at about
5.45 pm, the defacto complainant was taken in his auto rickshaw by the 1st accused and on reaching the scene of occurrence, the 2nd accused
allegedly pulled him out of the auto rickshaw, in consequence of which, the remaining accused attacked him with dangerous weapons like iron rod,
causing fracture injury to his legs and thereby committed the offence. The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. He is a
political worker and because of his political activism, he has been implicated in false case like this for an incident which took place in the year 2015, to
make sure that he is arrested and he is not able to participate in the impending Panchayath Elections.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The applicant was arrested on 23.10.2020. His
interrogation is already over. The learned Prosecutor submits that the applicant has got other criminal antecedents as well and he is a person, who is
behind taking the quotation for the 1st accused, to assault the defacto complainant through the remaining accused. Hence, even though, he does not
have any grave overt act except by pulling the defacto complainant from inside the auto rickshaw, the role of the applicant, is that he is the one who
engaged the other accused assumes importance and therefore he may not be granted bail.
After having considered the arguments placed by both sides and going through the records available, I find that the applicant has very limited role. It
is true that his role in engaging the other accused persons for assaulting the defacto complainant will have to be proved during trial, but as of now, it
has come out that the applicant has not inflicted the injury by himself and therefore further custody of the applicant may not serve any purpose. It is
also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation is over and the final report has already been filed and therefore incarceration will
not serve any purpose.
In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty
thousand only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on following further conditions:
(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
(ii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.
(iii) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail period.
In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.
The bail application is allowed.