Rajesh Kumar R vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), for an order of pre-arrest bail.

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.153/2024 of the Perumpetty Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered against them for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 332, 353 & 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 14.04.2024, at around 17.20 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, entered the office of the Kerala State Electricity Board, and the first accused slapped the de-facto complainant for not restoring electricity supply which was disrupted for two days. The accused caused injuries to the de-facto complainant and prevented him from discharging his official duties. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. Unni. K.K.(Ezhumattoor), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusation levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. A reading of Annexure-A1 First Information Report [FIR] would substantiate that none of the offences would be attracted against the petitioners. In fact, the de-facto complainant was in an inebriated condition and he misbehaved with the petitioners who went to make a genuine complaint. The de-facto complainant, using his influence, has got Annexure-A1 FIR registered, which is totally frivolous. The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that there are incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioners involvement in the above crime. She made available the accident register-cum-wound certificate of the de-facto complainant dated 14.04.2024 to show that he suffered injuries on his body. She submitted that the petitioners’ custodial interrogation is necessary, and recovery is to be effected. If the petitioners are granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would certainly hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

When the application came up for consideration on 16.04.2024, this Court passed an interim order directing the Investigating Officer to issue notice to the petitioners under Section 41A of the Code. However, it was made clear that the petitioners would not get any benefit of the said order, and it would be up to the learned Public Prosecutor to seek for the custodial interrogation of the petitioners, if necessary. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that subsequent to the passing of the interim order, the petitioners have been threatening the de-facto complainant.

The prosecution allegation against the petitioners is that, on 14.04.2024, at around 17.20 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, went over to the KSEB office and the first accused slapped the de-facto complainant for not restoring the electricity. The allegation against the second accused is that he threw a chair on the de-facto complainant and caused an injury to him.

On an evaluation of the materials on record, especially the accident register-cum-wound certificate, it can be seen that injury was caused due to the overt act alleged against the first accused. However, that is a matter to be investigated by the Police and to be decided at the time of trial. Nonetheless, I am of the definite view that since the specific overt act is alleged against the first accused, the custodial interrogation of the accused Nos.2 to 4 is not necessary. Hence, I hold that the petitioners 2 to 4/accused Nos. 2 to 4 are entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail and the first accused is not entitled to an order.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, and in view of the findings rendered above, I am convinced that the petitioners 2 to 4 have made out exceptional circumstances to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. On the contrary, the application filed by the first petitioner/first accused is meritless.

In the result,

(I) The application filed by the first petitioner/first accused is dismissed.

(II)The application filed by the petitioners 2 to 4/ accused Nos.2 to 4 is allowed subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners 2 to 4 are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today.

(ii)In the event of the petitioners 2 to 4’s arrest, the Investigating Officer shall release them on bail, on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each;

(iii)The petitioners 2 to 4 shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

(iv)The petitioners 2 to 4 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(v) The petitioners 2 to 4 shall surrender their passports before the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week from the date of their release on bail. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits to the effect before the said court within the said period;

(vi)The petitioners 2 to 4 shall not get involved in any other offence while they are on bail;

(vii)In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned  above,  the  jurisdictional  court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(viii)Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below.

(ix) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners 2 to 4 even while the petitioners 2 to 4 are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) And another [2020 (1) KHC 663].

(x) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts.