IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN FRIDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3608 OF 2023 CRIME NO. 581 OF 2023 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 4:

1 SHAFANA SHAFI AGED 49 YEARS THENGAKOOTTIL HOUSE, MYTHRI LANE, KODUNGALOOUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680664

2 ALIYAR AGED 49 YEARS MANGATTU HOUSE, AZHICODE BEACH, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680666

3 NISHA NISHAD AGED 42 YEARS KARIVELIPARAMBLI HOUSE, LOKAMALESWARAM KODUNGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680664

4 SUNEESH AGED 37 YEARS PARENT VELAYUDHAN VILLADATH ANNEEKKARA ROAD, KAROOPPADANNA P.O, THEKKUMKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680670 BY ADVS.

M.K.SUMOD VIDYA M.K.

RAJ CAROLIN V.

THUSHARA.K PADMA LAKSHMI RESPONDENTS/STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KODUNGALLOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680664 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OTHER PRESENT:

SRI. SANAL RAJ PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2023 This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners who got arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 581/2023 of Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. I have perused the relevant documents placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The prosecution case is that, at about 20.30 hrs on

13.04.2023, when the defacto complainant demanded accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are transgenders, accused Nos. 1 and 2 called accused Nos. 3 and 4 to the place of occurance, and attacked the defacto complainant. The specific allegation is that the 4^th accused beat on the little finger of the right hand of the defacto complainant by using an iron rod and same caused fracture. On this premises, prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 294(b) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length convince this Court that the petitioners are innocent and the defacto complainant and other person attacked transgenders and there occurred a scuffle. It is also submitted that as per Annexure – A2 FIR, counter case also has been registered against the defacto complainant. It is submitted further that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and therefore, they may be enlarged on bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor produced the case diary along with report and opposed bail highlighting the seriousness of the offence.

7. On perusal of the available materials, case and counter seen registered. In the counter case only bailable offences are alleged, whereas, non bailable offence under Section 326 is alleged in this crime.

8. Going by the allegations, assault against the defacto complainant by two transgenders and two other persons reached the place of occurance on call by them, could be gathered. Minimizing the complicity of the other accused, the overt acts alleged against the 4^th accused is that, he beat on the right little finger of the defacto complainant by using an iron rod and the same caused fracture. In the copy of the wound certificate, fracture of base of 5^th meta carpal noted along with injuries on little finger and right frontal region, etc.

9. Since, the fracture is the contribution of the 4^th accused, who alleged to have used an iron rod to beat the defacto complainant, his arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of iron rod are absolutely necessary, to effectuate meaningful investigation and eventful prosecution. However, there is no allegation for prosecution that the other accused did use any weapons to attack the defacto complainant. In view of the above, investigation against accused Nos. 1 to 3 is possible even without custodial interrogati