IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 12 of 2008() --------------------------- CRIME 407/07 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED --------------------------------------- RAJEEV @ KOCHUNADA RAJI, S/O. NADARAJAN, CHERUKIDA VEEDU, KUREEPPUZHA CHERRY, KAVANADU, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, ALONG WITH BA.83/08 AND 284/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. Nos. 12, 83 and 284 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 O R D E R These applications are filed by the accused persons in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 326 and 308 read with 149 IPC. B.A.No.83/08 is one for regular bail filed by the 2nd accused. B.A.Nos.12 and 284 of 2008 are applications for anticipatory bail filed by accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6. The 2nd accused was arrested and continues in custody from 8.12.07. The alleged incident took place on the night of 17.11.07. The crux of the allegations is that a group of six persons armed with dangerous weapons had attacked the de facto complainant/informant. In the F.I. Statement, the de facto complainant alleged that one person described as the son of Vikraman Mooper and five others had attacked him. Political animosity is the alleged motive stated in the FIR. Later, in the course of investigation, when the said son of Vikraman BA.12/08 & connected cases : 2 : Mooper was traced, the de facto complainant took the stand that he was not the person who attacked him. Later, the prosecution apprehended accused Nos.2 and 5. They were arrested. Accused No.5 has already been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court. The 2nd accused has come to this Court seeking regular bail. 2. It is the case of the prosecution now that the present 1st accused had engaged accused Nos.2 to 8 to mount an attack on the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for the first accused submits that the 1st accused had no motive ever against the de facto complainant, the victim. In these circumstances, the entire allegations may be held to be not justified, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the allegations under Sections 326 and 308 IPC are both not justified by the allegations in this case or the nature of injuries suffered. The inclusion of these allegations BA.12/08 & connected cases : 3 : clearly show that vexation is the motive. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the applications for anticipatory bail but does not oppose the application for regular bail. Appropriate conditions may be imposed, it is prayed. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am satisfied that regular bail can be granted to the 2nd accused subject to appropriate terms and conditions. 6. Coming to the applications for anticipatory bail, the learned Public Prosecutor was requested to pointedly bring to the notice of this Court any material to show that the 1st accused has any animosity against the de facto complainant as to justify his engaging accused Nos.2 to 8 to unleash an attack on the victim. The learned Public Prosecutor after perusal of the case diary shows that though the de facto complainant's statement has been recorded on three occasions by now, there is no mention of any animosity between him and the 1st accused. But the learned Public BA.12/08 & connected cases : 4 : Prosecutor points out that one of the arrested accused had stated that there was such animosity and it is because of such animosity that accused Nos.2 to 8 were engaged to attack the victim. It is of crucial relevance to note that eventhough the victim has been questioned many times thereafter, his version on this aspect has not been cross checked or recorded admittedly. 7. The allegation under Section 326 IPC is not justified and is not pressed, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. No grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC is shown to have been suffered by the victim. 8. My attention has been drawn to the wound certificate showing the nature of injuries suffered by the victim. The totality of circumstances do persuade me to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that sufficient and satisfactorily allegations justifying the inclusion of the offence under Section 308 IPC are not shown to insist. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted BA.12/08 & connected cases : 5 : to the other accused persons subject to appropriate terms and conditions. 9. In the result :- (a) B.A.83/08 is allowed. The petitioner/2nd accused shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions: i) The petitioner(A2) shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays, for a period of two months from the date of his release and thereafter as and when directed by the investigating officer in writing to do so. (b) B.A.Nos.12/08 and 284/08 are allowed. Following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioners(accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 ). BA.12/08 & connected cases : 6 : i) Petitioners(accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6) shall surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 18.1.08. They shall be released on regular bail on condition that they execute bonds for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. ii) The petitioners(accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6) shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m and 5 p.m on 21.1.08 and 22.1.08. During this period, the investigators shall be at liberty to interrogate the said petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps in the proper conduct of the investigation. iii) Thereafter they shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months. Subsequently the petitioners(accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6) shall so appear as and when directed by the investigating officer in writing to do so. BA.12/08 & connected cases : 7 : (iv) If the petitioners(accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6) 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 said petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law, as if these directions were not issued at all. (v) If they were arrested prior to 18.1.08, they shall be released from custody on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) without any sureties, undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 18.1.08. 10. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks