IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5826 of 2008()
1. RAJEEV.S.V., S/O.S.K.VIJAYAN, 23 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. S.I. OF POLICE, VELLATHUVAL POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :26/09/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No. 5826 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th September, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under 452, 294(b), 427, 353 and
324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1) of PDPP Act.
According to prosecution, the de facto complainant, who is a clerk
in the Panchayat Office, was assaulted by the petitioner along with
his father (first accused) at the Panchayat Office and thereby they
committed the various offences.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
petitioner’s father was a Panchayat President and now a Panchayat
Member in the opposition wing. He had taken a room on rent from
the Panchayat and in respect of parking of his vehicle in the
compound, there was some altercation with the clerical staff of the
Panchayat. In the course of this quarrel, the petitioner’s father was
brutally attacked and he sustained a grevous injury and he lost a
tooth. He gave a complaint and a crime was registered against the
de facto complainant and two others under Sections 294(b), 341,
323, 326 and 427 read with 34 IPC.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that since
the petitioner’s father was attacked, he telephoned his son and he
BA.5826/08 2
also rushed to the scene and the father was removed to the
hospital. But, the petitioner, who has not committed any offence,
who came to the scene only to remove the father to the hospital, is
now implicated in the offence. This was done deliberately by the de
facto complainant to harass the petitioner.
5. It was also pointed out that though a crime was registered
which includes even an offence under Sections 326 IPC, the de
facto complainant or any of the co-accused was not arrested by the
police. The petitioner’s father, who is the first accused in the case
was arrested and remanded to Judicial custody though the
allegations are less serious in nature compared to those in the other
case. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that the petitioner apprehends harassment and
unwarranted detention and hence, this application for anticipatory
bail.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the
records, the father made a phone call to the son and he came with
an iron rod and assaulted the de facto complainant and committed
the various offences.
7. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be
granted to the petitioner and hence, the following order is passed:
BA.5826/08 3
Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate
Court concerned within seven days from today and if
any bail application is filed, he shall be released on bail
on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction
of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:
i) Petitioner shall co-operate with the
investigation.
ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate
any witness or commit any offence while on
bail.
Petition is allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.