This application is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused involved in crime No.

1451 of 2018 of Vaikom Police Station, Kottayam District. The

aforesaid crime was registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 324, 326, 341, 506 & 307 IPC.

3.

The petitioner herein was the driver of on Mr. Anilkumar,

Commissioner of Vaikom Devaswom Board. On 30.06.2018 at

about 11 p.m, the petitioner kicked the de facto complainant during

their stay at Devaswom Guest House, Vaikom and inflicted with

severe injuries. First Information Statement was lodged by the de

facto complainant much later and the crime in question was

registered. Out of his apprehension of being arrested in the crime,

the petitioner has approached this Court seeking pre-arrest bail.

4. According to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant

was taken to VSM Hospital, Vaikom, immediately after the accident.

There the alleged cause of injury was spoken by him as fall from

staircase. After getting discharged from VSM Hospital, Vaikom the

de facto complainant availed treatment from Medical Mission

Hospital, Changanassery, wherein also the alleged cause of injury

Bail Appl..No. 5996 of 2018 3

was stated as fall from staircase. Till 05.07.2018, the de facto

complainant had no case that the injuries sustained by him was

inflicted by the petitioner in the incident alleged at present. The

FIS was lodged belatedly on 05.07.2018 and the allegations

levelled therein are false ones. The petitioner had never caused

the injuries to the de facto complainant as alleged in the FIS.

Originally when the FIR was registered, bailable offences alone

were incorporated. Only much later, non-bailable offences like 326

and 307 were added. For the foregoing reasons, he canvassed for

a direction to the investigating officer to release the petitioner in

the event of his arrest.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the

application. The Case Diary is also made available.

6.

I had a glance at the Case Diary. I could see merit in

the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

originally when the crime was registered only bailable offences

were there. But later on offences punishable under Sections 326

and 307 IPC were added into the crime. Thereafter, the

investigating officer applied for cancellation of bail granted to the

petitioner and accordingly bail was cancelled by the Magistrate

concerned.

Bail Appl..No. 5996 of 2018 4

7.

But, going by the FIS appended to the case diary this

Court had noticed serious allegations of assault of the de facto

complainant by the petitioner and others. It is also disclosed from

the accident register-cum-wound certificate dated 01.07.2018

available in the Case Diary that the de facto complainant had

sustained fracture of 4^th rib, which was also confirmed in X-ray.

But, when the crime was registered originally on 05.07.2018,

though materials were available for the Vaikom Police to

incorporate severe offences, for reason not known to this Court,

minor offences alone were incorporated in the crime. It is pertinent

to note that non-bailable offences were added into the crime much

later. Those offences ought to have been there in the crime

registered originally, since allegations to that effect were available

in the FIS lodged by the de facto complainant. Therefore

something fishy is noticed. Considering the serious nature of

injuries reportedly sustained by the de facto complainant, this

application seeking pre-arrest bail is not liable to be entertained.

In the result, this application stands dismissed.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH

NAB

JUDGE