Petitioners are accused in Crime No.222 of 2014 of the Melattur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed this application. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.
It is submitted that on 17.04.2014 at 11.30 a.m the petitioners attacked the de facto complainant with chopper. The weapon is not recovered.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not true. Petitioners and de facto complainant are relatives. There is a property dispute between them and the de facto complainant and others tried to do work in the property using JCB. That was questioned. De facto complainant and others attacked the petitioners for which the police have registered Crime No.223 of 2014 under Sec.324 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are prepared to co-operate with the investigation and produce the weapon (allegedly) used.
4. Having regard to the circumstances of the case I am satisfied that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief.
Application is allowed as under:
(i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.222 of 2014 of the Melattur Police station on 06.06.2014 at 10.00 am for interrogation.
(ii) In case interrogation of the petitioners is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating Officer to direct presence of the petitioners on any other day/days and time which the petitioners shall comply.
(iii) In case arrest of the petitioners is recorded, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
(iv) On such production learned magistrate shall release the petitioners on bail on their executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties each 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 any of the petitioners.
(b) Petitioners shall report to the investigating Officer on every 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) Petitioners shall report to the investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation.
(d) Petitioners shall not get involved any offence during the period of this bail.
(e) Petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(v) In case the petitioner violates any of conditions (b) to (e), it is open to the investigating Officer to move the learned magistrate until committal of the case if any and thereafter before the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).
It is made clear that in case the weapon (allegedly) used in Crime No.222 of 2014 is not recovered/taken to custody by the time the petitioners are produced before the learned magistrate, this order granting pre-arrest bail will cease to have effective. In that situation it is open to the petitioners to request for bail with opportunity to the Investigating Officer to seek custody of the petitioners as well. In case any such application(s) is filed learned counsel magistrate shall consider the same and dispose of as early as possible.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv