IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5138 of 2008()
1. NAVEEN, S/O. VENU, VADAKOTTU HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :18/08/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-------------------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.5138 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323 and
304 read with Section 149 IPC. According to prosecution,
petitioner along with other accused have assaulted the deceased
and inflicted injuries on him, by kicking on the stomach and
face and hitting on the chest. The deceased succumbed to the
injuries due to internal bleeding, after five days of the incident.
The incident was on 13.3.2008 and the death was on 18.3.2008.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the seventh accused who has been falsely implicated
in this case. Petitioner is a BJP worker. The deceased was a
worker of CPI(M). His parents are also active workers of the
same party. Though the incident happened on 13.3.2008, till
18.3.2008, nobody had a case that the petitioner committed any
offence against the deceased. Even the deceased himself gave
statement to the doctor, when he was admitted on 13.3.2008,
that he had a fall from the motor cycle, as the history of the
BA No.5138/08 2
injury. He had not implicated anybody until his death. He was
not questioned by the police. It is submitted that at a very highly
belated stage, on 18.3.2008, after the death of the deceased,
some persons come forward with a complaint alleging that
certain offence was committed by the petitioner and others.
4. This case is falsely foisted out of sheer political rivalry
between the two political parties, it is submitted. Going by the
prosecution case, itself, it was pointed out that no specific overt
act was alleged against the petitioner. Only A1 to A3 allegedly
committed the offence. They did not use any weapons in the
offence, but, they only kicked and fisted the defacto complainant,
consequent to which, there was internal bleeding, he being a
jaundice patient. For all these reasons, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be granted
anticipatory bail.
5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public
prosecutor submitted that the deceased had not made any
complaint to the police because he was apprehending more
danger to him from the rival political party. The incident
happened since one of the friends of the deceased attacked the
BA No.5138/08 3
third accused. This present case was a retaliation to the said
incident. The deceased did not divulge the fact to any person
including doctor since he was concerned about his own safety.
However, on the next day of the incident, on 14th he had told his
parents about the incident and when the deceased died on
18.3.2008, the information was given to the police. On
investigation, it is revealed that there were eye witnesses to the
occurrence who come forward with a complaint to the police.
But, it is not correct to say that no incident occurred at all.
6. A look at the photograph in the case diary reveals the
nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, he submitted.
The injured had considerable extent of contusion on the face and
on different parts of the body, including stomach which would all
corroborate oral statements. There was also an injury on the leg.
The nature of the injury sufficiently points out that blunt force
was used by the assailants. The postmortem certificate also
gives the details of the injury sustained and the present
allegation made against the assailants cannot be said to be
inconsistent with medical evidence only because the crime was
not reported without delay. The delay does not erase the crime
BA No.5138/08 4
at all and therefore, this petition is opposed and anticipatory bail
may not be granted, it is submitted. Except accused nos. 4 and
7, all others were arrested and the petitioner was absconding
and hence, he could not be arrested.
7. On hearing both sides and on going through the case
diary, I am satisfied that it may not be proper for this Court to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an offence of this
nature. As per the allegations, petitioner was a member of an
unlawful assembly and he acted pursuant to the common object
of the assembly and it is not correct to say that he had no role at
all.
The petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl