Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.306 of 2014 of the Vidyanagar Police station for the offences punishable under Secs.341, 324, 294(b), 506(ii) and 308 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 24.05.2014 at about 5 p.m., while the defacto complainant was riding a motorcycle, the petitioners went in a car, overtook the motorcycle blocked it and attacked the defacto complainant with wheel spanner. The petitioner used the wheel spanner. The vehicle in which the petitioner and the 2nd accused came and the wheel spanner are not so far recovered.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not true. The petitioner, his wife and others were travelling in the car. The defacto complainant went riding the motorcycle in a zing zag manner in front of the car. There was some dispute regarding giving side to the vehicle. The defacto complainant and another attacked the petitioner and his wife. The Police registered Crime No.311 of 2014 against the defacto complainant and another for offences under Secs.294(b), 308, 323, 324, 341, 354 and 506(ii) read with Sec.34 of the IPC.
4. The petitioner is not reported to be involved in any other case from the Vidyanagar Police station. Having regard to the nature of allegations made, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, provided that the vehicle in which the petitioner and the 2nd accused were allegedly travelling and the wheel spanner allegedly used by the petitioner are either recovered or seized by the Police.
The application is disposed of as under:
I. Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.306 of 2014 of the Vidyanagar Police station on 27.06.2014 at 10.00 am for interrogation.
II. In case interrogation of the petitioner is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of the petitioner on any other day/days and time which the petitioner shall comply.
III. Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.
IV. In case the petitioner is arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
V. On such production learned magistrate shall release the petitioner on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:
a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner.
b) Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer on every alternate Saturday between 10.00 am and 12.00 pm for a period of two months or until filing of the final report whichever is earlier.
c) Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.
d) Petitioner shall not get involved any offence during the period of this bail.
e) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses.
f) In case any of condition nos.(b) to (e) is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the learned magistrate (until committal of the case if any, and thereafter before the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).
VI. It is directed that incase the vehicle in which the petitioner and the 2nd accused were (allegedly) travelliing and the wheel spanner (allegedly) used by the petitioner are either not seized or recovered by the time the petitioner is produced before the learned magistrate, this order granting pre arrest bail to the petitioner would cease to the effective. Thereon, it is open to the petitioner to request for regular bail before the learned magistrate.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE NS