Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime apprehend arrest and has filed the application. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 30.3.2014 at the relevant time, petitioners and others are attacked the defacto complainant with iron rod and attempted to forcibly take away his motor cycle. When he resisted, he was attacked with iron rod. The first petitioner placed a chopper on neck of ten year old daughter of the defacto complainant and threatened to kill her. The second accused pushed down the wife of the defacto complainant. Mobile phone of the defacto complainant was damaged. It is also submitted that the petitioners and other accused came to the scene of occurrence in a lorry and motor cycle.
3. The learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) was due to the first accused, who is father of the first petitioner, in a lorry transaction. The defacto complainant was one of the brokers. As the amount was not paid to the first accused, the defacto complainant agreed to give his motor cycle as security. Other allegations are not true.
4. I have gone through the Case Diary and finds from the statement of witness reference to the alleged incident in the way stated by the Prosecutor.
5. It is submitted that the first accused is arrested and released on bail. That does not mean that these petitioners should be granted pre-arrest bail.
It is directed that in case the petitioners are arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate as early as possible where it is open to the petitioners to request for bail.
The application is disposed of with the above direction.
Sd/-
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. to Judge das