Priyesh And Ors vs State Of Kerala

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1,3 & 5 in Crime No.595 of 2020 of Kumbla Police Station. The above case is registered against the

petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 506, 452, 427 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

The prosecution case is that on 23.9.2020 at about 8.30 p.m., while the defacto complainant was travelling in his scooter, after closing his shop

wherein he conducts vehicle insurance facilities and when he reached near his house, a white swift car came and stopped parallel to the scooter. It is

alleged that they uttered filthy languages and threatened him with dire consequences. Immediately thereafter the car left the place. The defacto

complainant contacted one Manoj over telephone and he came to the house. At that time, the persons who were in the car namely Priyesh, Pavan and

Ajith trespassed into the house and destroyed furniture and television set. It is also alleged that the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant and

thereby committed the offences.

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

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is a case and counter case. The counsel submitted that a counter case is also registered against

the the defacto complainant and others. The counsel submitted that Annexures 1 and 2 are the wound certificates of petitioners 1 and 2. Petitioners 1

and 2 also sustained injury in the same incident. The counsel submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section

452 IPC. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail.

The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are

necessary.

After hearing both sides, I think this is not a fit case, in which orders under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C can be issued. Therefore, this bail application

can be disposed directing the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. The counsel for the

petitioners submitted that some of the accused were already released on bail by the lower court. If that is the case, the petitioners can be directed to

surrender before the investigating officer and after interrogation there can be a direction to the investigating officer to produce the petitioners before

the jurisdictional court and the jurisdictional court will consider the bail application preferably on the same day itself. Consideration of bail application

under Section 438 and consideration of bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C are different. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I think

this bail application can be disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer within 10 days from today. The investigating officer can interrogate the petitioners.

Thereafter, if the petitioners are arrested, the petitioners will be produced before the jurisdictional court forthwith.

(ii) When the petitioners are produced before the jurisdictional court, if a bail application is filed by the petitioners after giving prior notice to the

Prosecutor concerned, the learned judge will consider the same on the date of filing the bail application itself.