Petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. According to the petitioner, he is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime Nos.462 of 2014, 463 of 2014 and 464 of 2014 respectively of Ezhukone Police Station, Kollam District.
3. All the said three Crimes have been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 436 and 427 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. These crimes have been registered on the basis of a series of untoward incidents happened in retaliation to Crime No.457 of 2014 of the Ezhukone Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, in a case, in which one of the sympathizers of a political party was allegedly done way with by the workers of the rival political party. The sympathizers of the political party, whose member was done way with, wanted to settle scores against the sympathizers of the other political party. It is alleged that the houses of such persons were trespassed into, the same were smashed and damaged, and mischief by fire was also committed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not involved in any of the incidents, whereas his motorbike was taken away by the Police as a thondy article in connection with the said cases. Even at that time, he was not made an accused. Thereafter, he had approached the court below for the release of his motorbike under Section 451 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even at that time the Police had no case that he was an accused in these crimes. His motorbike was ordered to be released to his interim custody. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was thereafter, he was made an accused in the case. It seems that the investigation of these cases is not over. Whether the petitioner has actual participation in the incidents or not, have to be thoroughly investigated into. The allegations against the petitioner are very grave and serious. Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner and the present stage of the investigation, I do not think that these are fit cases wherein anticipatory bail can be granted.
In the result, these bail applications are dismissed. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for an opportunity to petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation. If so advised, the petitioner may surrender before the investigating officer within ten days from today and in such case, the investigating officer can interrogate the petitioner, effect recovery if any, and conduct the investigation and produce the petitioner without delay before the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, where the petitioner 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/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE DSV/25/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge