Bail Application No.4103 of 2024

1 Bail Application No.4103 of 2024 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4103 OF 2024 CRIME NO.525/2024 OF Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` RAJAN AGED 56 YEARS S/O. MAKKU, KOTTAI HOUSE, NAYARANGADI DESOM, KODASSERY VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680721 ``` ``` BY ADVS. N.L.BITTO MITHUL T ANTO ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` Sr PP Smt Seetha S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Bail Application No.4103 of 2024 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** **======================** ## **Bail Application No.4103 of 2024** **-----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 24[th] day of May, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Code’), for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the second accused, who is mistakenly shown as first accused in the bail application, in Crime No.525/2024 of the Chalakudy Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 308 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 Bail Application No.4103 of 2024 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 29.4.2024 at around 17.30 hours, while the de facto complainant reached Pariyaram Post Office Junction, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, obstructed the car of the de facto complainant and the first accused caught hold of the head of the de facto complainant and hit against the dash board of the car and with a helmet broke the wind shield of the car causing a loss of Rs.50,000/- to the de facto complainant. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. N.L Bitto, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha.S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of Annexure-1 FIR shows that it was the first accused who inflicted injury on the de facto 4 Bail Application No.4103 of 2024 complainant and also broke the wind shield of the car. There is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner so as to attract the offence under Sec.308 of the IPC. Moreover, the first accused has already been arrested in connection with the crime and his custodial interrogation is complete. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. However, she did not dispute the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner for having caused any injuries or loss to the de facto complainant. She stated that it was the first accused who hit the head of the de facto complainant against the dash board and broke the wind shield. 7. After analysing the materials on record, especially Annexure-1 FIR, I prima facie find that there is no specific 5 Bail Application No.4103 of 2024 overt act alleged against the petitioner so as to attract the offence under Sec.308 of the IPC. Nonetheless, that is a matter to be investigated and decided at the time of trial. However, the specific overt act is alleged against the first accused. 8. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the materials placed on record and the submissions made across the Bar, especially on considering the fact that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner, that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail since he has made out exceptional grounds to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: 6 Bail Application No.4103 of 2024 (i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. (ii) In the event of the petitioner’s arrest, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount each; (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. (iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week 7 Bail Application No.4103 of 2024 from the date of his release on bail. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the said court within the said period; (vi)The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail; (vii) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. (viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. (ix) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila** 8 Bail Application No.4103 of 2024 **Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. (x) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts. sd/- sks/24.5.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**