This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner who is the 1st accused in Crime No.696 of 2014 of the Kottiyam Police station under Sec.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short). 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 19.04.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted grievous injury on the defacto complainant using an iron rod and thereby, they have committed the offences punishable under Secs.324 and 326 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Infact during November 2013, there was some incident occurred in which, the defacto complainant attacked the petitioner and his brother and that matter was settled. Subsequently, again on 04.05.2014 they trespassed into their house and attacked the mother of the petitioner. Though a complaint was filed, no action was taken and they have been falsely implicated in the case. So he prayed for allowing the application.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that a weapon used for committing the offence has to be recovered and the investigation is in the preliminary stage.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. It is seen from the records that on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant, injured, Crime No.696 of 2014 of Kottiyam Police station was registered against the petitioner and another alleging offences under Secs.324 and 326 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the statement that an iron rod was used for inflicting the injury. The petitioner produced some documents to show that on 04.05.2014, the defacto complainant and others trespassed into the house and attacked their mother and the petitioner and even during November 2013 another incident occurred in which, the petitioner and his brother were attacked and that was settled and no case was registered even in respect of the subsequent incident. It may be mentioned here that as regards the 1st incident is concerned, there is no case registered and the petitioner has no grievance about the same as well and according to him, it was settled. As regards the 2nd incident is concerned, this was alleged to have happened after the incident on the basis of which, the present crime was registered.
7. So, I am at this stage not going in to the genuineness of the allegations made in Annexure A2 complaint said to have been filed by the mother of the petitioner in respect of the subsequent alleged incident. Further, the petition filed by the petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Sessions Court by Annexure A3 order. On going through the allegations in the case records, the nature of injury sustained, manner in which it was committed etc. this Court feels that it is not a fit case where the power under Sec.438 of the Code has to be invoked in favour of the petitioner to grant pre arrest bail to him. The 2nd accused has already been arrested and he was released on bail. So, I do not find any reason to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioner at this stage to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail and the petition is liable to be rejected.
In the result the bail application is rejected.
If the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer and if the investigating officer feels after interrogation, his arrest is required, then record the arrest and produce the petitioner before the concerned Magistrate Court without delay and on such production, it is open to the petitioner to move application for regular bail before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the bail application strictly in accordance with law.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN JUDGE / True Copy / NS P.A. To Judge