Renjith vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed by the 1st accused in Crime No.378 of 2022 of Eravipuram Police Station.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

As per the case of the prosecution, it is alleged that on 31.03.2022 at about 9.30 p.m, accused Nos.1 and 2 criminally trespassed into the shop managed by the defacto complainant and owned by his father and thereafter, the first accused attempted to beat on the head of the defacto complainant and when it was restrained by using the left hand, the defacto complainant sustained fracture on his left hand and right clavicle. The allegation against the second accused is that he also beat and kicked the defacto complainant. It is alleged by the prosecution further that the first accused snatched away mobile phone owned by the defacto complainant and also Rs.22,500/- from the shop. This is the basis on which, prosecution alleges commission of offences under Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the second accused surrendered before the investigating officer, in tune with the anticipatory bail granted by this Court, the police effected recovery of the weapon alleged to be used for commission of the offence. It is submitted further that the said fact could be gathered from the remand report. It is submitted further that this Court earlier dismissed the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the petitioner/1st accused holding that arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary for the purpose of investigation and recovery of the weapon alleged to be used by the 1st accused. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the weapon was already recovered, the petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail.

Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application on the submission that the petitioner herein had used an iron rod to beat the defacto complainant and in consequence thereof the defacto complainant sustained serious injuries and multiple fractures. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary in this case, where serious offences under Sections 452, 326 and 392 of I.P.C were alleged to be committed by the accused among other offences.

In this matter, soon after the occurrence, the defacto complainant was hospitalised at 10.10 p.m and the F.I statement was recorded on the next day. In the wound certificate of the defacto complainant, recorded on the date of occurrence at 10.10 p.m, the following serious injuries and 3 serious fractures noted:

“ABRASIONS: 2X1 cm on upper third of rights thigh, 2X1cm on dorsal aspect of left midforearm. Contusion right flank. LACERATED WOUNDS: 5X0.5X0.5cm on forehead, 7X1X0.5cm on left parietal region. X-RAYS: left forearm shows fracture distal end of left Ulna, Right shoulder and Chest-shows fracture right clavicle. CT brain & facial bones: No obvious extra or intracranial haemorrhage or fracrtures visualised.”

In such a case, arrest and custodial interrogation are absolutely necessary to get more details from the petitioner to have meaningful investigation and successful prosecution. In such a case, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

Therefore, this bail application found to be meritless and is accordingly dismissed with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer without fail and on failure, the investigating officer is directed to record his arrest without any delay, so as to have effective investigation of the crime.

This Bail Application is dismissed accordingly.