Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.1067 of 2014 of the Muvattupuzha Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.
2. Application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. It is submitted that on 27.04.2014 at about 09.30 p.m the first accused came in an autorickshaw and he, along with the petitioner and the second accused attacked the de facto complainant with chopper. Accused 1 and 2 are arrested and the chopper is recovered.
4. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. According to the learned counsel, the case is registered as a counterblast to Crime No.1066 of 2014 registered by the same Police Station for the offences under Sections 324, 294(b), 308 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the de facto complainant and others. It is submitted that in Crime No.1066 of 2014 there is no reference to the involvement of the petitioner in the incident. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an employee of the Indian Coffee House.
5. On hearing both sides it appears to me that even in Crime No.1067 of 2014 allegations against the petitioner is that he along with the second accused wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant. It also appears that the second accused against whom similar allegation was made, was granted regular bail. In the circumstances, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief but subject to conditions.
Application is allowed as under:
(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.1067 of 2014 of the Muvattupuzha Police Station on 28.05.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.
(ii) If interrogation of the petitioner could not be completed that day, he shall appear before the officer investigating the case on the day/days and time as directed by him which the petitioner shall comply.
(iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.
(iv) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
(v) On such production, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required to be detained otherwise on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five 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 officer investigating the case on every alternate Saturday between 10.00 a.m and 12.00 p.m for a period of two months or until filing of the final report whichever is earlier.
(c) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation.
(d) Petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail.
(e) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(vi) It is made clear that in case any of condition Nos.
(b) to (e) is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned magistrate (until committal of the case if any, and thereafter, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 100).
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
AS /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge