Velayudhan vs State Of Kerala

Shircy V, J

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.30/2021 registered by Cheruthuruthy Police against the petitioners for having committed offences

punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 294(b) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this application under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The prosecution allegation is as follows:

On 3.02.2021 the petitioners have attacked the defacto complainant and his wife and caused injuries to them by using dangerous weapons such as

bamboo stick, stone etc. They have also used criminal force to outrage the modesty of the wife of the defacto complainant and thereby committed the

aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised a plea of false implication and contended that there are civil disputes between the parties pertaining

to a pathway leading to their residence. In fact, in the year 2020 the defacto complainant and his wife had blocked the pathway and there arose an

altercation between the parties and even the 1st petitioner had sustained fracture to his nasal bone in the attack by them. A crime was registered as

Crime No.620/2020 on the allegation raised by these petitioners against the defacto complainant and his wife. The petitioners have also filed a case

before the Munsiff Court, Vadakkanchery as O.S.No.284/2020 and an order of interim injunction was obtained restraining the defacto complainant

and his wife from causing obstruction to the pathway which is under the use of these petitioners for ingress and egress to their residential house. In

violation of the said order they have again obstructed these petitioners from using the pathway and there arose again a scuffle between them and

some how or other the defacto complainant and his wife sustained injuries. But these petitioners have not attacked the defacto complainant and his

wife as alleged by the prosecution. Still they apprehend arrest and hence they are constrained to move this Court with this petition.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that civil disputes are pending between the parties and a counter case has also been registered

against the defacto complainant and his wife and both the cases are under investigation.

5. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioners, as well the civil dispute between the parties and the registration of counter

case against the defacto complainant and his wife, I think that the request for pre-arrest bail can be considered in favour of these petitioners directing

them to co-operate with the investigation of the case. As both the cases are under investigation, custodial interrogation of these petitioners may not be

required for the investigating agency. Such being the case, I think that this application for pre-arrest bail can be allowed subject to the following

conditions:

(i)Â Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum

each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the event of their arrest.

(ii)Â They shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.

(iii)Â They shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

(iv)Â They shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise 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.

(v) They shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.