Raju vs State of Kerala

K. Ramakrishnan, J.—This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the sole accused in Crime No. 51/2014 of South Paravur Police Station u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 07.01.2014 at about 7.30 p.m the accused came to the house of the de facto complainant''s mother''s house and abused her with obscene language and attacked her and when the de facto complainant intervened, he had abused her and attacked her also and thereby he had committed the offence punishable u/s 294(b), 323, 354, 427 of Indian Penal Code. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. In fact, he went to the family house for settling a family dispute and in that the de facto complainant, her mother and others have attacked him and he sustained serious injuries and though he was admitted in the hospital and the matter was informed to the police, no case was registered. Subsequently, he filed a private complaint and on that basis a crime was registered. In order to escape from the same, the present false case has been foisted at the instance of the de facto complainant against the petitioner. So he prayed for allowing the application.

The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the investigation is not over and during investigation of the complaint filed by the petitioner, it was revealed that it was a false case and the investigation of both the cases are in progress.

Heard both sides and perused the case diary file Crime No. 51/14 of South Paravur Police Station.

It is seen from the records that the above case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant who is niece of the petitioner alleging commission of the above said offence. The alleged incident happened on 07.01.2014, but it was reported to the police only on 12.01.2014. I am not at this stage going to the question as to whether a delay is fatal or not as it is a matter to be considered by the trial court on the basis of evidence. The petitioner had produced a wound certificate and also a copy of the private complaint filed by him before the Paravur magistrate court in respect of this incident. It is seen from the wound certificate that he went to hospital on 07.01.2014 itself at 10.20 p.m. It is also in a way admitted that the private complaint filed by him was forwarded to the police and the police has registered a case as Crime No. 103/2014 of the same police station against the de facto complainant and others and the investigation of both the cases are in progress. I am not at this stage going in to the genuineness of the allegations made either in the First Information Statement in this case or the allegations made by the petitioner in Annexure-2 private complaint filed by him in respect of the same incident. I am also not expressing any opinion as to whether the allegations are sufficient to attract any of the offences alleged in either of the cases as well at this stage. Considering the nature of allegations made, I feel that the custodial interrogation as the petitioner is not required in connection with the investigation. The apprehension of the prosecutor that he is likely to threaten the witnesses can be removed by reversing some conditions.

Considering the circumstances, I feel that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner with some conditions. So, the application is allowed with the following conditions:

The respondent is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 51/14 of South Paravur Police Station, on executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of arresting officer/investigating officer/the respondent as the case may be.

That the petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation including for the purpose of identification by the witnesses for two consecutive days between 9 a.m and 12 noon immediately after such arrest and release and thereafter as and when required by him for this purpose in connection with the investigation in writing to do so till the final report is filed.

The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.

The petitioner shall not leave State of Kerala without getting prior permission from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur till the final report is filed.

If the petitioner surrenders before the concerned magistrate court and moves for regular bail, then the learned magistrate is directed to release the petitioner on bail on the same conditions as stated above.

With the above conditions, the application is allowed.