Rajeev Acharya vs State Of Kerala

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

The above captioned application seeking anticipatory bail is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( “Code†for short) by

the accused in Crime No.164 of 2021 of the Aluva West Police Station registered under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 r/w 34 of the IPC.

The petitioner was allegedly questioned by the informant for driving his vehicle at a furious pace and for generating dust. Being aggrieved, the

petitioner is alleged to have trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and when his wife intervened, she was pushed down causing

injuries. It is further alleged that the informant was attacked with a wooden stick causing a fracture.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant asserted that the applicant is innocent. According to the learned counsel, an incident of the nature

alleged by the prosecution had not happened. He would further contend that the de facto complainant was the actual aggressor.

This submission is vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Placing reliance on the earliest records and the wound certificate of the

injured, it is contended that the materials collected till date points to the complicity of the petitioner

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, this

Court has to strike a balance and it has to be ensured that no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation At the same time

harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused will also have to be avoided. The records reveal that the investigation is still in the

early stages. It appears from the medical records that the de facto complainant had sustained a fracture. As of now, the claim of the learned counsel

for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are of vague nature cannot be countenanced. A probe into the veracity of the allegations at

this point of time is not warranted. Suffice to say, considering the nature of the allegations, the role assigned to the petitioner and the severity of the

injuries inflicted, and the stage of investigation, I find no plausible reason to grant an order or pre-arrest bail to the petitioner

At this stage, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. I direct the petitioner to surrender before

the Investigating officer within a period of ten days from today. He shall be thoroughly interrogated and after interrogation, recovery if any shall be

effected and he shall be produced before the Court having jurisdiction. If an application for regular bail is preferred, the same shall be considered and

orders shall be passed preferably on the same day itself on its merits.

This application is dismissed.