The two petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.1421/2014 of Kodanadu Police Station, Ernakulam District, registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 448, 323, 354, 427 r/w 149 IPC. The non-bailable offence alleged in this case is one under Section 354 IPC. The brief of the prosecution is that on 4.10.2014, at about 8:00 pm, the petitioners along with other accused in furtherance of their common intention to cause bodily injury to the dafacto complainant and her husband, trespassed in to courtyard of the house of the defacto complainant and destroyed the electric bulb. It is further alleged that the petitioners caught hold of the husband of the defacto complainant and pushed him to the ground and the other accused persons also attacked the husband of the defacto complainant and the petitioners had torn the nighty worn by the defacto complainant and thereby committed the aforementioned offences. The 4th accused is the member of the Panchayath who aided the other accused to commit the aforementioned offences. Sri.K.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the entire allegations are falsely foisted against the petitioners and that the 4th accused is a member of the Panchayath and petitioners are autorickshaw drivers by profession residing in the locality and the defacto complainant and her husband were belonging to Idukki District and they encroached the canal puramboke and re-constructed a new shed and was residing there for the last five years and that the defacto complainant had indulged in some immoral activities and during nights customers visited her house and the same was questioned by the neighbours and they filed complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodanad but the police did not take any action. The defacto complainant filed false cases against the neighbours and she continued her immoral activities in her house and that while the immoral activities were going on in the house of the defacto complainant on 4.10.2014 at about 8:00 pm the local residents and the member of the Panchayath concerned (A4) gathered together in front of the house of he defacto complainant and at that time, two persons had ran away from her house and the local residents questioned about the said act and the defacto complainant and her husband abused the people gathered there in filthy language and there was a wordy altercation between the local people and the defacto complainant and First Information has been lodged by the defacto complainant to falsely implicate the accused to wriggle out of the situation wherein she is faced with. The defacto complainant had given an application for residential certificate before the Panchayath which was rejected by the Panchayath authority. But the defacto complainant and husband believed that her application was rejected due to the influence of the 4th accused, who is the Panchayath member, and since then she is not in good terms with the 4th accused. This has led to the registration of the instant crime, it is averred. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents that they are ready to co-operate with the investigation, that accused Nos.3 to 5 were arrested on 7.10.2014 and they were released on bail 8.10.2014 and recovery is effected and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required in this case. In the circumstances, the plea of pre-arrest bail may be granted to the petitioners subject to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court so as to protect the bonafide interest of the prosecution.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted about the details of registration of the case and submitted that the overt act regarding the alleged commission of offence under Section 354 is mainly attributed to the present petitioners and has also submitted that keeping in view that the seriousness of the action indulged in by the petitioners, prosecution is opposing the plea of pre-arrest bail.
3. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and on an evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to hold that the plea of pre- arrest bail could be allowed, in this case. Crucial stage of recovery of the weapon is over. The plea of the petitioners that they have no previous criminal antecedents appears to be correct. In this circumstance, it is ordered that in the event of the petitioners being arrested in connection with Crime No.1421/2014 of Kodanadu Police Station, then they shall be released on bail on their separately executing bond for ` 35,000/- (Rupees Thirtyfive Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer concerned in the aforementioned crime. This order will be subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within three days from execution of the bail bond before the investigating officer concerned and if either of them are not holders of passports, then they shall file affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioners require their passport in connection with their travel abroad, then they are free to approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case if such an application is filed, the court below concerned is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala, reported in 2009 (2) KLT 712, notwithstanding the aforementioned condition imposed by this Court.
(ii) Petitioners shall report before the investigation officer in Crime No.1421/2014 of Kodanadu Police Station between 10:00 am and 11:00 am on every alternate Sundays until the submission of the final report in this case.
(iii) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar nature.
(iv) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required.
(v) The petitioners shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
If the petitioners fail to comply with any of the conditions as ordered above, the bail granted to them are liable to be cancelled.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.