Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.841/2014 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District for offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, 354, 427 r/w 34 IPC. Apprehending arrest in the said crime, the petitioner has preferred this application invoking remedy under Section 438 Cr.P.C praying for grant of anticipatory bail. The crux of the allegation against the petitioner is that on 18.7.2014 at about 5:00 pm, the accused, 4 in numbers, in furtherance of a common intention went to the house of the defacto complainant and picked up a quarrel and the 1st accused attacked with a chopper on the head of the defacto complainant and when the daughter of the defacto complainant tried to intervene she was also kicked by the 2nd accused, other accused fisted and kicked the defacto complainant and thereby the accused committed the offences as alleged.
2. Sri.S.Rajeev, Advocate, instructed by Sri.K.K.Dheerendra Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 1st accused was formally arrested in this crime, but is now under custody in connection with a preventive detention matter, and accused Nos.2 & 3 were arrested and were released on bail. He would also submit that going by the main case projected by the prosecution, it is a case of quarrel and fight between neighbours and even according to the version of the prosecution, during the scuffle, the daughter of the defacto complainant also tried to intervene. The allegation as affecting the said lady is only arising out of that. It is not a case as if the prosecution gravamen of charges is that the petitioner or the other accused had gone there intentionally to assault or outrage the modesty of the lady in question and that the incident alleged is caused in the scuffle involved in between the defacto complainant, who is the father of the lady, and the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Section 354 has been incorporated in the FIR, as the same is a non-bailable offence in view of the aspect that all the other offences lodged in the FIR are non-bailable offences. He would also submit that investigation has been completed and that there is no necessity for any custodial interrogation of the petitioner.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. Learned Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that the investigation has been completed and that the final report culminating in charge sheet has already been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram District. Learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that in case this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the same should be conditioned with necessary safeguards so as to protect the interest of the prosecution.
4. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution and after having considered the facts and circumstances of this case carefully, I am inclined to order grant of anticipatory bail in the present case subject to conditions. It appears that the main incidents of the prosecution case arises out of a scuffle in the neighbourhood between the defacto complainant, who is the father of the lady, and the accused and that the two of the other remaining accused have already been released on bail and the other accused though has been formally arrested, is now appears to be under detention not in respect of this crime but in a preventive detention matter. More crucially, investigation has been completed. In this view of the matter, it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for ` 35,000/- (Rupees Thirtyfive Thousand only) before the investigating officer and on furnishing two sureties each for the same amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within three days from the execution of the bail bond before the investigating officer and if he is not a passport holder, then he shall file affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner require his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then he is 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 trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, 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 conditions imposed by this Court.
(ii) Petitioner shall report before the investigation officer in Crime No.841/2014 of Vattiyoorkavu 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 petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar nature.
(iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required.
(v) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions as ordered above, the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.