## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V**
**MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/5TH MAGHA, 1937**
## **Bail Appl..No. 320 of 2016**
**------------------------------------**
## **CRIME NO. 1208/2015 OF MUNAMBOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM**
**-------------------**
## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4:**
**---------------------------------------------**
**ANU ANTONY, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH BABY, VASASSERY HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY**
## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:**
**-------------------------------------------------------------**
## **1. STATE OF KERALA,**
- **REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO.1208/2015 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).**
## **2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**
**MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683515 (CRIME NO.1208/2015 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).**
**BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**PJ**
**RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J. -------------------------------------------------------B.A.No.320 of 2016 -------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of January, 2016**
## **O R D E R**
This petition is filed under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioner herein is the 4[th] accused in Crime No.1208/2015 registered by the Munambam police alleging offence punishable under S.323, 324, 448, 341 & 307 r/w S.34 of the IPC.
3. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that on 25.12.2015 at about 5.30 p.m., the accused Nos.1 & 2 in the aforesaid crime barged into the house of Ratheesh, the victim and the 1[st] accused inflicted stab injuries with a knife. When the victim fled to escape from the onslaught, he was followed and extensive injuries were inflicted by the 1[st]
B.A.No.320 of 2016 : 2 :
accused with a knife. The 2[nd] accused in addition to aiding the 1[st] accused to inflict injuries, also stamped on the body of the victim.
3. The role attributed to the petitioner is that the incident was committed by the accused in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy and the petitioner herein had an active role to play.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner herein has been roped in with the aid of S.120 B of the IPC and that too on the basis of an alleged confessional statement given by the first accused when he was arrested by the police. It is further submitted that the first accused has already been arrested and the weapon of offence was
B.A.No.320 of 2016 : 3 :
recovered based on his disclosure. According to the learned counsel, S.449, 120B and 212 of the IPC were incorporated only later. It is pointed out that the prosecution has no case that the petitioner was present at the scene of occurrence. He has been implicated only because of the fact that he happened to be a friend of the second accused, and that too with the aid of S.120B of the IPC. It is asserted that the petitioner is having no criminal antecedents .
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions of the learned counsel and submitted that the victim Ratheesh was brutally assaulted by the accused Nos.1&2 with deadly weapons and the petitioner herein had a part of play in the commission of the crime as he was the person who had given information to the prime culprits about the movements of the injured. It is further submitted that if relief is granted to the petitioner, he would flee and that there is every chance of influencing the witnesses.
B.A.No.320 of 2016 : 4 :
7. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the case diary file as well.
8. Crime No.1208/2015 was registered initially on 25.12.2015 against the accused Nos.1 & 2. It was on 26.12.2015 that a report was submitted before the learned Magistrate incorporating S.120B of the IPC and thereafter, the petitioner herein has been added in the array of the accused. After evaluating the entire materials on record, it appears that the motive for commission of the crime is that one Prathapan, the office bearer of a nearby residents association was brutally manhandled by the 1[st] accused and his associates on an earlier occassion and this was questioned by the injured. The records do not reveal that the petitioner herein had any specific role in the previous incident as well. I take note that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is sought to be arrayed as an
B.A.No.320 of 2016 : 5 :
accused on the allegation that he was involved in the conspiracy.
9. From the nature of allegations and in view of the apprehensions raised by the investigation officer that the petitioner would not co-operate with the investigation and that he would flee from the clutches of law, I am of the view that the relief of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions so that interest of the prosecution can also be safeguarded. This is because, on facts, it does not appear to me that custodial interrogation is warranted. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petition can be disposed of with the following directions:
i). The petitioner shall within a period of one week surrender before the investigating officer and submit himself for interrogation. Thereafter, he shall be shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for 50,000/- with two
B.A.No.320 of 2016 : 6 :
solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer. In that event he shall be released on bail in Crime No. 1208/2015 of the Munabmam Police Station.
ii). The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer at 10.00 a.m. on the next two consecutive days and submit himself for interrogation.
iii). If the investigating officer requires the attendance of the petitioner on any further occasion than the days mentioned above, he can direct the accused in writing to appear and co-operate with the investigation.
iv. The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Magistrate concerned in one week from the date of appearance before the investigating officer. If the petitioner does not have a passport, he shall swear to an affidavit showing that fact and submit it before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction.
v. The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses. He shall not meddle in any manner with the investigation.
vi. The petitioner shall not leave the limits of
B.A.No.320 of 2016 : 7 :
State of Kerala without the permission of the Magistrate concerned.
vii. If any of the conditions above is violated, the Magistrate having jurisdiction is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law without referring the matter to this Court.
## This application is allowed as above.
Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.**
Bb
_[True copy]_
_P.A to Judge_
