IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6849 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.366/08 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS -------------------- 1. SHADIL SHABEER, S/O.SHABEER, 25 YEARS MANGULAM HOUSE, MUKKADA PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHANAZ SHABEER, S/O.SHABEER, 27 YEARS MANGULAM HOUSE, DO.DO. 3. SHABEER, S/O.MOHANNED SALI, 50 YEARS MANGULAM HOUSE, MUKKADA PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR SRI.S.RAJEEV FOR DE FACTO COMPLAINANT THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6849 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, deceased Vijayaraghavan was murdered by certain persons. As per the FIR, he was found being assaulted by first accused and two identifiable persons. The deceased sustained injuries from the premises of a residential flat and thereafter, he was taken in a vehicle by first accused and others. Later, he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital on the same night on 22.10.2008. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are arrayed as accused 1 to 3. They are innocent of the allegations made. As per the FIR, only first accused is involved in the crime and the name of accused 2 and 3 are not mentioned therein, even though the first informant knew the third accused, who is father of first accused personally. Therefore, atleast accused 2 and 3, who are not named in the FIR may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that the medical records will not reveal as to who had committed the offence and hence, a case is BA.6849/08 2 concocted against accused 1 to 3 subsequently at the time of investigation under influence by de facto complainant and his people. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Brother of the deceased also engaged a counsel and he also requested that he may be heard. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the entire incident is not revealed from the First Information Statement. The first informant has only seen first part of the incident, in which, the first accused has assaulted de facto complainant using beer bottle. As per the allegations in the First Information Statement, deceased was taken away by third accused and others in a car and this fact was stated to the first informant by one Eapan. Thereafter, what had taken place is being investigated into. 5. It appears that somebody had taken deceased to the Medical College Hospital in an unconscious state and left him there, without making any allegations regarding the cause of injury etc. The details of the person who had taken the injured to the hospital were not available to the hospital authorities. Therefore, this case requires a detailed investigation into the circumstances under which the deceased sustained injuries which resulted in his death. BA.6849/08 3 In case petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, it will adversely affect investigation, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, particularly the medical records, I am satisfied that this case requires a detailed investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted, it is likely that it will affect the investigation adversely. I am also satisfied that petitioners may tamper with evidence and influence or intimidate the witnesses in which case the investigation cannot be conducted smoothly. On facts, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early as on 22.10.2008 and petitioners are not available for interrogation. In the case of the allegations made, it appears that petitioners' interrogation will be required. Petitioners are, therefore, directed to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.