Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. According to the petitioners they were apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.545 of 2014 of the Karimannoor Police Station, Idukki District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 394 read with Section 34 IPC.
3. According to the 1st petitioner, on 20.06.2014, the defacto complainant caused to hit his pick-up auto-rickshaw on the Scorpio car belongs to the 1st petitioner, whereby the Scorpio car sustained substantial damage. There occurred a quarrel, which it invited an intervention of the Police. A mediation was conducted, whereby the defacto complainant had agreed to pay an amount of ₹25,000/- to the 1st petitioner, for which an agreement was also entered into. Subsequently the defacto complainant has not cared to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement and did not care to pay the amount. It is alleged that on account of the said enmity, on 07.11.2014 at 07.45 p.m., the 1st petitioner sent two persons to hire the auto-rickshaw of the defacto complainant. The auto-rickshaw was hired and while they had covered a distance of 1 ½ kms, it is alleged that 1st petitioner along with some others came by an Alto car, obstructed the auto-rickshaw on the road, and dragged down the defacto complainant from it. He was beaten up and thrown to the road and they took the auto-rickshaw and went away.
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the CD.
5. It seems that there is specific allegation that the 1st petitioner had come over there and taken away the auto- rickshaw. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the 2nd petitioner has not been so far identified as a person involved in the incident.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners seeks for an opportunity to the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation and has also submitted that the petitioners are even ready to deposit an amount of ₹2,97,500/-, as total damages as per the claim of the defacto complainant. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required as they did not know anything regarding the whereabouts of the auto- rickshaw.
7. Whatever it is, this is a case wherein custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required for the continued investigation of this case. At the same time, the 1st petitioner has a genuine grievance, as against the defacto complainant, as the defacto complainant had not cared to comply with the terms and conditions of the earlier agreement. When the custodial interrogation of the 1st petitioner is required for the continued investigation of this case, I am of the view that while dismissing this present application, an opportunity can be granted to the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer in order to co- operate with the investigation.
In the result, this bail application is dismissed. At the same time, if so advised, the petitioners may surrender before the investigating officer within ten days from today and in such case, the investigating officer can interrogate the petitioners, effect recovery if any, and conduct the investigation and produce the petitioners without delay before the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, where the petitioners can move for bail. In such case, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders, preferably on the same day itself, provided advance notice on such application has been given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor also.
Sd/ DSV/12/12 // True Copy // B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE PA to Judge