Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioners are A2, A4, A3, A5 and A6 respectively in Crime No.1138/2014 of the Aryanadu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 427 and 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 09.09.2014 at 05.30 p.m., the petitioners along with the other accused, with the common object of committing the murder of the defacto complainant, came by three motorbikes, armed with deadly weapons like swords and choppers, attacked the defacto complainant, who was walking through the road. They have made use of swords and choppers for causing severe injuries on the body of the defacto complainant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is a counter case as Crime No.1143 of 2014 of the said Police Station as the 4th accused in this case had sustained an injury. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the 4th accused had sustained an injury on his hand when the cut inflicted by the 2nd accused on the defacto complainant felt accidentally on the hand of the 4th accused. It seems that the 4th accused had preferred a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Nedumangad, which was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Consequently, Crime No.1143 of 2014 was registered. The investigation revealed that the case forwarded by the 4th accused in the said case was false and thereby the Police has referred the said case.
6. The contents of the CD prima facie reveal the complicity of the petitioners. The allegation against the petitioners are very grave and serious. They have made use of swords and choppers in broad day light for causing very serious injuries on the body of the defacto complainant. It seems that the defacto complainant has marginally escaped. The investigation of this case is not over. Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioners and the present stage of the investigation, I am satisfied that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
In the result, this bail application is dismissed.
DSV/14/11 // True Copy // Sd/-
B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE P.A. To Judge