Petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. According to the petitioners, they are apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.644 of 2014 of Chalissery Police Station. Petitioner in B.A.No.6742 of 2014 is A1, petitioner in B.A.No.6744 of 2014 is A2 and petitioners in B.A.No.7595 of 2014 are A3 to A6 in the said crime. The crime has been registered for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 326, 308, 506(1) and 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
3. The defacto complainant was associated with A1 and A2 in conducting a chitty fund. Subsequently disputes have arisen between A1 and A2 on the one part and the defacto complainant on the other part. A1 and A2 entertained a belief that they were thoroughly defrauded and cheated by the defacto complainant. Out of that enmity, it is alleged that, the accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy in front of the Guruvayur Temple on one day and at other places on subsequent days, and they have decided to exterminate the defacto complainant. In order to settle scores with the defacto complainant, A1 and A2 engaged A3 to A6 to do away with the defacto complainant. Consequently, it is alleged that on 25.08.2014 at 8.45 p.m., A3 to A6 came by two motorbikes, and obstructed the defacto complainant who was coming by his car at a place called Pallipadam. He was severely attacked with a sword and iron pipes, thereby he sustained fracture of the bones of both his hands and sustained other various serious injuries. The windscreen of the car was smashed, thereby the defacto complainant sustained a wrongful loss of ₹6,000/-.
4. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in B.A.No.7595 of 2014, the learned counsel for the petitioners in B.A.Nos.6744 and 6742 of 2014 and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that A3, who is the 1st petitioner in B.A.No.7595 of 2014 has already been arrested and the other petitioners are at large. The learned Senior Counsel as well as the other learned counsel have pointed out certain infirmities in the prosecution case. Of course, those things do not weigh with this Court at present while dealing with these applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The allegations against the petitioners are very grave and serious. The investigation has a long way to go. They have to collect further evidence in this case. Presently the investigation is handed over to the Crime Branch, Palakkad. Considering all the above, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.
In the result, these bail applications are dismissed.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE DSV/20/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge