Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.354 of 2005 of the Venjaramoodu Police Station (re-registered by the CBCID, HHW-I, Thiruvananthapuram Unit as Crime No.39/CR/2008) for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 349, 427 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 19.05.2005 at about 08.30 p.m., the petitioner and others attacked the de facto complainant with sword and other deadly weapons. Investigation by the Crime Branch revealed that the petitioner is actively involved in the incident.
3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. Petitioner is an employee of the Kerala University. Though the petitioner was arrayed as accused by the local police, their investigation revealed that the petitioner is not involved. Thereon, the de facto complainant filed W.P.(C).No.24027 of 2007 in this Court for a direction for proper investigation. In the meantime the police submitted final report in the JFMC- Nedumangadu without implicating the petitioner as accused. Learned magistrate took the case on file as C.P.No.241 of 2007. Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court directing investigation by the Crime Branch. It is accordingly that the Crime Branch re-registered the case. Learned counsel invites my attention to Annexure-A stated to be photocopy of statement allegedly given by the de facto complainant and recorded by the learned magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the Crime Branch. Learned counsel also invites my attention to Page-5 of the aforesaid statement where according to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant specifically stated that the petitioner has not caused any hurt to the de facto complainant.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor, in response has submitted that investigation revealed involvement of the petitioner also and he is required to be questioned. It is submitted that in the statement of one of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and who is said to have been present with the de facto complainant at the time of the incident, there is reference to involvement of the petitioner.
5. Having regard to all relevant circumstances stated above, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. At the same time, he has to be questioned by the investigating agency. He has to co-operate with the investigation.
Application is disposed of as under:
(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.39/CR/2008 on 16.06.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.
(ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time and place as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply.
(iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with 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, during the period of this bail get involved in any offence.
(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, of the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 100).
(vii) It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the investigating officer questioning the petitioner and effecting recoveries if any as provided under the law on the information if any given by the petitioner.
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
AS /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge