Pradeep and Raveendran vs State of Kerala

M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.—Petitioner in B.A. No. 1151 of 2012 is the first accused and petitioners in B.A. No. 1146 of 2012 are accused 2 and 4 in Crime No. 16 of 2012 of Nenmara Police Station registered for the offences u/s 341, 452 and 307 read with 34 of IPC. Subsequently, the case is being investigated incorporating the offences u/s 120B also. Apprehending arrest, petitions are filed u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

The argument of the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the very case of the prosecution cannot be believed and when the version in the F.I. Statement of the injured is that while he was in the hospital, the first accused, along with third accused and one Vinod came to the hospital and when first accused uttered that the injured is to be killed, Vinod, using a sword, attacked the injured and inflicted injuries and thereby committed the offences. Subsequently, Vinod was deleted and instead, the petitioners in B.A.1146 of 2012 were implicated based on a subsequent statement recorded and if the incident is as stated in the F.I. Statement, accused 2 and 4 are not involved in the case and they were falsely implicated because of political reasons and petitioners are prepared to abide by any condition and they be released on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and made available the case diary. The case diary reveals that on 4.2.2012, first information statement of the injured was recorded. As per the said version, the injured was being treated as an inpatient in Nenmara Government Hospital. While so, at about 9 pm, first accused Kumar, along with his friends, Vinod and third accused Navneeth Krishnan, came ba 1146 & 1151/12 3 to the hospital and those three persons stood on either side of the bed, where the injured was lying and first accused uttered to kill the injured. Vinod then took a sword from beneath his shirt and aimed it at the neck of the injured. Finding it, the injured cried and wriggled out and as a result, it hit on the back of his head inflicting an injury. Vinod again attacked him with the sword, but it did not touch the body of the injured, instead touched on the bed. When others gathered there, they ran away. As per the version in the F.I.Statement, only three persons were involved and they are accused 1 and 3 and one Vinod. The crime was registered based on F.I. Statement. It is seen that subsequently a further statement was recorded from the injured u/s 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure where he had a different story. As per the said version, while he was being treated in Ward No. 16 of the hospital as an inpatient, first accused along with Pradeep and Raveendran who are the petitioners in B.A. No. 1146 of 2012, ba 1146 & 1151/12 4 trespassed into the hospital and stood on either side of the bed and when first accused uttered that injured is to be killed, Pradeep took a sword from beneath his shirt and thereafter questioned him whether a case would be registered against the BJP people and attacked him and inflicted the injuries.

The case diary itself reveals that further statement was made because of political reasons. In such circumstances, when the presence of petitioners in B.A. No. 1146 of 2012 is not disclosed in the F.I. Statement and there is no case in the subsequent statement that accused 2 and 4 or Vinod who was mentioned originally, are not known to the injured and the specific case in the F.I. Statement was that there were only three persons at the time when he was attacked from the hospital, possibility of accused 2 and 4 being implicated later due to politicial reasons cannot be ruled out. If so, accused 2 and 4, who were not originally shown in the F.I. Statement are entitled to the anticipatory bail sought for, on conditions. But as the presence of the first accused, the petitioner in B.A. No. 1151 of 2012 and his part in the commission of the offence was disclosed in the F.I. Statement, he cannot be granted anticipatory bail.

Though Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as evidenced by Annexure C to K, petitioner/first accused had gone to Kasargod by rail by reserving a ticket and stayed at Aliya Lodge, Kasargod and was also treated at General Hospital, Kasargod and Kasargod Institute of Medical Sciences, on the materials now available, it cannot be found that first accused was not there in the hospital when the injured sustained the injuries. Anyway it is a matter for consideration at the time of trial and also a matter for the Investigating Officer to investigate. The petitioner in B.A. No. 1151 of 2012, the first accused, is not entitled to the anticipatory bail sought for. Learned counsel then submitted that first accused be permitted to surrender before the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

Petitioners are directed to report before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today for interrogation. After completing interrogation, accused 2 and 4 shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs. 20,000/- each with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer on the folowing conditions.

i) Accused 2 and 4 shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 10 and 12 am for one month and thereafter as and when required.

ii) They shall not induce, intimidate or threaten any person from disclosing facts known to him to the Investigating Officer or the court.

iii)They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the concerned learned Magistrate.

After completing interrogation, if first accused, the petitioner in B.A. No. 1151 of 2012 is arrested, he shall be produced before the concerned Magistrate without delay. In that event, he is at liberty to file application for bail. If such an application for bail is filed before the learned Magistrate, learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law without delay. Investigating Officer shall also investigate on the claim of the first accused that he was not in the scene of occurrence at the relevant time and was travelling to Kasaragod and was then at Kasaragod on 5.1.2012.