IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2884 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.172 OF 2010 OF KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION (KANNUR DT.) .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ JOJIN JOSEPH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH,VENNAYIPPILLIL HOUSE, C-POYIL,P.O.CHUDALA,TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTING S.H.O.KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2884 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 3rd June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Sections 332, 294(b) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 & A2) along with two others went to St.Angelos Fort, Kannur for sight seeing. They trespassed into a prohibited area in the barricade, while the de facto complainant who is a Police Constable tried to prevent them. Petitioners along with others then assaulted de facto complainant and they also showered abusive words against him. Thereafter, petitioner and second accused ran away. Accused 3 and 4 were arrested from the spot. 3. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the incident did not take place, as alleged by prosecution. Petitioner is a student studying at Bangalore who came home for holiday. He is aged only 22 years. Petitioner and his friends had Bail Application No.2884 of 2010 -2- gone for sight seeing and petitioner went to take photographs sitting on a canon. At that time the de facto complainant came there and pulled him out by holding his color and behaved rudely to him. The accused 3 and 4, who are working in Army, intervened and questioned the de facto complainant about his conduct. They were arrested from the spot and petitioners left the place. They did not commit any offence as alleged. 4. Actually police had arrested accused no. 3 and 4 at the scene and they were shown as accused 1 and 2 in the F.I.R Statment. They were produced before the Court and bail was granted to them on the same day since there was no objection from the side of the prosecution. It is now understood that petitioners are implicated as accused 1 and 2 though they were originally shown as accused 3 and 4. Thus, there is an attempt on the part of the police to see that the petitioner is not granted bail, since he did not oblige the demands made by the de facto complainant. In these circumstances, if petitioner is arrested, he will suffer serious injuries, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences were committed by petitioner along with 3 others. On hearing Bail Application No.2884 of 2010 -3- both sides and on a perusal of the case diary, I find that it was the person who was shown in the F.I.R. as accused no.1 who had assaulted the de facto complainant. But, now petitioner is shown as accused no.1, though he was originally shown as accuded no.3 in the F.I.R. It is not understood why the rank of accused is altered now. According to petitioner's counsel, there is an attempt on the part of the prosecution to make it appear that it was petitioner who assaulted de facto complainant by merely effecting a change in the rank of the accused. 6. However, it is clear that petitioner has not assaulted de facto complainant as per the F.I. Statement but it was the present accused no.3 who did it. He was already released on bail on the same day of production before the Court. Altogether, I am satisfied if anticipatory bail is not granted, it is likely that petitioner may suffer irreparable injuries. A reading of F.I.Statement reveals that the role of the petitioner is limited. Petitioner is a student aged 22. His name is not shown in the F.I.Statement. Hence, the following order is passed : (1) Petitioner shall surrender before learned Magistrate within seven days from today. Bail Application No.2884 of 2010 -4- (2) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions :- (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. (ii) In case petitioner is involved in any similar offence while on bail, his bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE Jvt