Petitioners are accused Nos.1,2,5,6,8,7,9,13 and 10 respectively in Crime No.374 of 2014 of the Pulikeezhu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 306, 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed the application. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 09.04.2014 at about 11 p.m. these accused and others formed unlawful assembly, attacked the de facto complainant with wooden stick, iron rod and soda bottle and inflicted injuries. The incident occurred due to political rivalry from a dispute over affixing posters in connection with the general election. The first accused is involved in four other crimes while the second accused is being proceeded against Section 107 of Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel has submitted that the allegations are not true. It is submitted that due to political rivalry, these accused and others are falsely implicated. It is also submitted that one of the injured is a member of personal staff of the Chief Minister and is politically influential. According to the accused, the de facto complainant and others came in a vehicle and started disbursing money to the voters to influence them. That was prevented and the police was informed. The police seized the car, money and weapons from it. The de facto complainant and others ran away from the scene, fell upon granite stone and suffered injuries.
4. In view of the said contentions raised by the learned counsel, I perused the C.D. file and the wound certificates of the injured. I find that one of them sustained four contusions at different places of the body and fracture of the left ankle. The other injured also has sustained contusions at different parts of their body.
5. Learned counsel has submitted that according to the de facto complainant, he was assaulted with iron rod on the head, he avoided the blow and it fell on his left ankle causing fracture. Learned counsel expressed dismay as to how such an injury could be caused.
6. As things stand now, I do not venture to go into those questions but, need only mention that the injured have sustained various injuries including fracture.
7. In the nature of the allegations made and the investigation required to be done, request for pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed.
8. The learned counsel requested that these accused may be allowed to surrender before the investigating officer.
9. Having heard both sides, I am inclined to grant the request.
The application is disposed of as under :
1. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1,2,5 to 8, 10 and 13 shall surrender before the officer investigating the case on 17.06.2014 at about 10 am for interrogation.
2. In case interrogation is not completed that day, the petitioners shall appear before the officer investigating the case any other day/days and time as directed by the investigating officer.
3. In case they are arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day, where it is open for the petitioners to request for regular bail with intimation given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned at least three working days in advance and raise all their contentions regarding the alleged incident and the application of the sections of offence attributed to them.
4. If custody of the petitioners is required for any purpose, the investigating officer can move application for the purpose.
5. Learned magistrate shall dispose of the application(s) having regard to all relevant circumstances including whether custody of the petitioners is required for seizure of any material and pass appropriate orders as early as possible.
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE AMV /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE