Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11513
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS, J
ANEESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./3522/2017
SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN, SRI.V.R.RAJESH
Specific overt acts attributed to a co-accused can influence the decision on pre-arrest bail while considering counter-allegations.
Headnote:
Bail - Pre-Arrest Bail - Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 324, 326 - Court granted bail with conditions for some petitioners while denying it for one based on specific overt acts.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners are accused of causing injury to the complainant during a fight at a marriage reception. They claim to be the victims of the attack. The case arose after a first information report was lodged against them after a counter issue was raised regarding injuries sustained by the first petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the injuries sustained by both parties but noted the specific overt act of the third petitioner, which warranted the denial of pre-arrest bail for him. Bail was granted to the first and second petitioners under specific conditions.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the allegations and counter-allegations of violence between parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court examined the evidence of injuries sustained and the nature of the complaints against each petitioner, emphasizing the unique circumstances applicable to the third petitioner.
Final Decision: Pre-arrest bail granted to first and second petitioners under conditions; third petitioner denied bail.
ORDER
Petitioners are accused of having caused fracture injury on the de facto complainant in Crime No.277 of 2017 of Kumbala Police Station. Pursuant to the FIS lodged, crime was registered for offences punishable under sections 341, 324, 326 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they apprehend arrest.
2. According to the prosecution, the incident happened on
19.04.2017 night in the course of a marriage reception. Two groups of youngsters are alleged to have fought against each other. According to the petitioners herein, in fact the de facto complainant and others herein are the assailants and they attacked the petitioners herein.
3. To buttress that contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Annexure-B, which is the FIR registered in Crime No.273 of 2017 on 20.04.2017. According to the petitioners, first petitioner sustained injury on the scalp and other injuries and was taken by petitioners 2 and 3 to a hospital 14 kms away from the place of incident. Annexure-C is the wound certificate as recorded by the doctor after examining him at 1.10a.m. According to the petitioners, the present crime was registered on 22.04.2017 as an B.A.3522/17 afterthought. The de facto complainant herein has not sustained any serious injury, contended the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, Annexure-A FIR and FIS indicate that the petitioners herein had also attacked the victim therein. Specific overt act is attributed to the third petitioner, who is stated to have hit on the leg of the de facto complainant with an iron rod. The iron rod has to be recovered. Having regard to this and the specific overt act attributed to the third petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to him. Considering the injury sustained on the first petitioner and the counter case that has been laid, I am inclined to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to petitioners 1 and 2 subject to conditions.
(i) Petitioners 1 and 2 shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on they executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.
(ii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of execution of the bond as above or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
B.A.3522/17 (iii) They shall not get involved in any other identical offence and shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.
However, the third petitioner, if he so chooses, may surrender before the investigating officer at the earliest. If he so surrenders, after interrogation and the recovery, if any, he may be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate on the same day itself and bail application, if any, filed by him may be taken up and disposed of by the learned magistrate on the same day itself.
