O R D E R

Dated this the 10th day of March 2021 This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.74/2021 of Sasthamkotta Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 341, 326 and 308 of the I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

19.01.2021 at about 9.00 PM, while the de facto complainant was returning from work, the applicant due to the previous enmity towards him, wrongfully restrained him, hurled abuses at him and thereafter assaulted him by means of a dangerous weapon like an iron rod and aimed to hit his head, the de facto complainant warded off that blow and sustained a hit on his hand, which caused a fracture of his hand and thereby the applicant attempted to commit culpable homicide.

4. The applicant states that the allegations are not true and that he has been falsely implicated. It is stated that there was a scuffle between the applicant and de facto complainant. The de facto complainant is a notorious criminal and the applicant was hit with a stick on his head and all over his body, as a result of which he too sustained some injuries as evidenced by Annexure A2 the O.P.Record, which shows that he had gone to the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Sasthamkotta on 19.01.2021 and several aberrations were noted all over his body and the allegation is that he was hit with a stick. The applicant had also submitted a complaint before the police as evidenced from Annexure-A3 on the very same day. But no crime has been registered on the basis of his complaint. But the complaint as against him has been registered on 20.01.2021 at 7.25 PM. The applicant also states that he was the first who lodged a complaint before the police, but the police have been insiding with the de facto complainant and have deliberately registered the crime against him, whereas no case is registered against the de facto complainant.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the police could not investigate the complaint, which was lodged by the applicant, because he was not available and he was absconding. Even though notice was issued to him, he did not appear and respond to that. It is stated that the de facto complainant has sustained a grievous hurt, whereas no grievous injuries have been sustained by the applicant.

7. After having heard the submissions on both sides, I find that there was a scuffle between the de facto complainant and the applicant as evidenced by the medical records. The de facto complainant sustained a fracture on his hand, but there are no other serious injuries sustained by him. The applicant has also sustained aberrations all over his body. The applicant has one criminal case registered against him as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, but that is a crime for a bailable offence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant is involved in any grave crime. There is no possibility of his fleeing from justice, but he has to be interrogated and the weapon he had used is to be recovered. Therefore, the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of arrest, after interrogation, the applicant shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and shall cooperate with the investigation; and (iii)During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any similar offences.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.