IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 394 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.240/07 OF MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 3 & 4 --------------------------------------------- 1. GOPI, S/O.RAJAYYAN, AGED 44, VALOTTUKONAM, PULIMOODU VEEDU, VELIYAMKODU, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE. 2. SHINE @ SHINELAL, AGED 24, S/O.SIVARAJAN, KAINIKKARA KIZHAKKUMKKARA, VELIYAMKODU. 3. MAHESH, AGED 19, S/O.SANKARANASSARI, PAYATTUVILA KUZHINIVANNA VEEDU, VELIYAMKODU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No.394 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1, 3 and 4 in a crime registered alleging commission of offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.452 and 326 of the IPC. The alleged incident took place on 20/12/07 at 8 p.m. The crime was registered on 21/12/07. The crux of the allegations is that the accused persons – 4 in number, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted him with dangerous weapons resulting in fracture of the nasal bone. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The allegations raised cannot inspire confidence at all. The real incident has been B.A. No. 394 OF 2008 -: 2 :- suppressed with malicious intent. The 1st petitioner is the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant, the de facto complainant having married the 1st petitioner's sister. The de facto complainant is a person having criminal antecedents. He had allegedly been indulging in matrimonial cruelty against the sister of the 1st petitioner/1st accused. On the day in question, the sister was assaulted. Hearing her cry, the neighbours including the petitioners had allegedly gone to the house of the de facto complainant and had tried to intervene and stop the brutality. Enraged by this conduct of the petitioners, false and vexatious allegations are being raised against the petitioners. The victim has not really suffered any grievous hurt. False allegations are made on that score also. Whatever injury was suffered by the de facto complainant was suffered by him in the course of the push and pull that followed the assault on the sister of the 1st petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The First Information Statement and the Case Diaries significantly did not at all reveal the fact that the de facto complainant is the 1st petitioner's brother-in-law. Considered in the light of the defence urged by the petitioners, this circumstance aroused suspicion in the mind of the court and the B.A. No. 394 OF 2008 -: 3 :- learned Public Prosecutor was requested to take specific instructions on that aspect. The learned Public Prosecutor now reports that it is now evident that the 1st petitioner is the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant. But the learned Public Prosecutor submits that it was not a case where the wife was assaulted. The wife herself has given evidence against the petitioners. There is no reason at all to assume that it was a case of the de facto complainant assaulting his wife and the petitioners intervening to save the wife. No semblance of material is available in support of this theory, urges the learned Public Prosecutor. But why was that crucial information suppressed at the early stages? No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming except that the parties were at loggerheads and the 1st petitioner had never behaved like the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant or brother of his wife. In these circumstances, crucial significance may not be attached to the omission to state the relationship in the First Information Statement or in the later statements given before the police, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Though the wound certificate shows a suspected fracture, the Case Diary does not reveal anything to confirm that the fracture had actually resulted also. B.A. No. 394 OF 2008 -: 4 :- 5. I have rendered my very anxious consideration to the circumstances of this case. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am satisfied that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to appropriate terms and conditions. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioners: (i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 15/2/08. They shall be released on regular bail on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 16/2/08 and 18/2/08. During this period the Investigator shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of one month. Subsequently, B.A. No. 394 OF 2008 -: 5 :- they shall so make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all; (iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 15/2/08 as directed in clause (i) above, they shall be released on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/- each without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 15/2/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge