IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 67 of 2008() --------------------------- CRIME NO. 310/07 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ---------------------------------------- JAYAN @ SURESH,S/O. DAVID PLAMOOTTIL VEEDU, CHERIYAKONNI, ARYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARYANAD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 67 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he, along with his father-in-law/A4, attacked the defacto complainant on account of animosity arising from the fact that the defacto complainant had earlier disconnected the cable connection to the house of the accused for the reason that payment of subscription had not been made. Allegations are raised under Section 326 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The petitioner has a totally different story to advance. According to him, the defacto complainant had misbehaved to his wife, who alone was available in the house. Admittedly subscription was in arrear. The defacto complainant had gone to the house to collect the arrears. Cable connection has been disconnected also on that day. But according to the petitioner, B.A.No. 67 of 2008 2 the defacto complainant, under the pretext of collecting subscription, had gone to the house of the petitioner and had misbehaved to his wife. To cover up that incident, a totally false allegation was raised later. The petitioner has a further contention that the allegation cannot reveal any offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. The learned counsel further points out that the petitioner's wife had filed a complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction on 21.11.2007 raising allegations against the defacto complainant alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned counsel in these circumstances prays that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. The police is not acting fairly. They are trying to help the defacto complainant. No proper investigation has been conducted into the complaint filed by his wife before the Magistrate, which has been referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and a crime has been registered only long later. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the totality of circumstances clearly reveal that allegations against B.A.No. 67 of 2008 3 the defacto complainant have been invented later on to enable the petitioner to spell out a defence in the prosecution initiated against him. The learned Prosecutor points out that the petitioner does not have a case that his wife had ever complained of the incident on 15.11.2007 to anyone prior to 21.11.2007. That must clearly reveal that the later complaint filed directly before the Magistrate without and before approaching the police is an invention in order to save his skin. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merit about the acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that the later private complaint must have been filed to create a defence and in retaliation by the wife of the petitioner. The materials satisfy the court that a grievous injury has been suffered also by the defacto complainant. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the B.A.No. 67 of 2008 4 Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm