IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5277 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.858/08 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONER ----------------- VIJAYAN, S/O SREEDHARAN, BUNGIAVIPURAYIDAM, VADAKKUMBHAGAM WARD, OPPOSITE, KOLLAM HEAD POST OFFICE, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.5277 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, on 6.8.2008 at about 12.30 PM, the first accused, along with other five persons, who are identifiable by sight, formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like sword, iron rod, wooden logs etc., trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, who is the Chief Editor of a fortnightly by name, 'Polygraph', assaulted him and attempted to commit murder. He was hospitalised and on the basis of the statement given by him, a crime was registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 452, 326 and 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The further case of the prosecution is that the 9th accused, who was a former employee of the de facto complainant, is the king-pin and the offence was committed at his instance and under his instructions. Money was paid by 9th accused to the accused, who committed the offence at the scene. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Though he is implicated as the 9th accused, on the very next day of the incident, except the name, no other details are given in the report. After BA.5277/08 2 registration of the crime, on 6.8.2008, Annexure A2 report is submitted before the court on 7.8.2008, stating the names and details of various other accused but the 9th accused was described as “Vijayan”. 4. If as a matter of fact, the petitioner is the former employee, the de facto complainant would know his details and hence it is unlikely that the petitioner is implicated by the de facto complainant, it is submitted. As per the First Information Statement, the incident occurred as a consequence to a report made against an Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and now the allegation is that the incident happened as motivated by the petitioner, who was an ex-employee, it is pointed out. Hence, it is argued that the prosecution has no consistent case and hence the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition and he will make himself available for interrogation, it is submitted. But, if he is arrested and detained, it will result in serious injury to him. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the de facto complainant were heard in the matter. They submitted that the de facto complainant was assaulted brutally and he sustained various BA.5277/08 3 fractures and he was nearly killed by using deadly weapons like iron rod, sword He, being the Chief Editor of a fortnightly, had published several articles against several persons involved in corrupt practices. Therefore, when an incident happened, he suspected that it may be the result of a publication effected shortly prior to the incident involving an Assistant commissioner of Sales Tax. 6. Even now the de facto complainant does not know why this incident happened or who is involved in the act, but the police has to investigate into the crime, it is submitted. During investigation it is found that the petitioner paid money to various accused, who went to the scene and assaulted the de facto complainant, learned Public Prosecutor submitted. It is also submitted that there are witnesses to the payment made by petitioner to other accused and hence, petitioner has to be questioned to find out who was behind the act committed against the de facto complainant. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it will adversely affect the investigation. 7. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the interrogation of the petitioner would be required for revealing what exactly had happened. Several facts will be within his exclusive knowledge BA.5277/08 4 which can be ascertained in investigation by questioning him. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.