Petitioners herein are the two accused in Crime No.663 of 2014 of the Aryanadu Police Station registered under Sections 450, 307, 394 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The Crime was registered on the complaint of one Manilal made on 26.05.2014, regarding an incident of assault that occurred on 28.04.2014. The prosecution case is that at about 12.30 hours in the night of 28.04.2014 the two accused trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, made an attempt on his life, and they also committed robbery of Rs.16000/-, a mobile phone, and some cheque leaves. During investigation the 2 accused were arrested by the Police on 05.06.2014. When produced in Court, they were remanded to judicial custody by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad, and their application for bail was dismissed by the learned magistrate on 07.06.2014. Now they seek bail from this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. As required by the Court, the learned Public Prosecutor produced the case diary along with report of the investigating officer, and he objected this bail application on the ground that investigation is not over.
3. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case diary, I find that the prosecution has gone a long way with investigation. It is submitted that the investigating officer has already recovered the weapon used by the accused for the commission of the alleged offence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first petitioner (first accused) does not in fact press the application for bail in view of the fact that he is involved in so many crimes and that he is also undergoing preventive detention.
5. On a perusal of the case diary, I find that the de facto complainant had not sustained any serious injury in the incident. Whether the alleged injury was in fact inflicted in an attempt on his life, is a matter to be decided on trial. Of course, there is allegation that the accused had committed theft of some amount, some cheque leaves and also the mobile phone from the possession of the de facto complainant. The alleged incident happened on 28.04.2014, but the injured brought complaint only on 26.05.2014. This delay creates some suspicion. Of course, the prosecution will have to explain the delay during trial. I do not find strong and definite materials for a prosecution in this case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Of course robbery, and also infliction of injury whilst committing robbery, are alleged in the complaint, but strong materials are not there for prosecution under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. The F.I statement will show that injuries were in fact inflicted by the first accused, and the alleged robbery was also committed by the first accused. In such a situation I am inclined to grant bail to the second accused on certain conditions. I find that investigation of the case will not be affected if the second accused is now released on conditions.
In the result, this petition is allowed in part.
(a) The second petitioner will be released on bail on his executing bond with two sureties for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction.
(b) Bail is granted on condition that after release the second petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. on all Thursdays for a period of two months from this date.
(c) The second petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the material witnesses.
(d) The second petitioner shall not leave the limits of the Aryanadu Police Station during the said period of 2 months.
P. UBAID, JUDGE.
AS