VINEETH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DATED this the 26th day of August, 2014 O R D E R The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 671 of 2014 of Poochakkal Police Station and apprehending arrest in the above crime, he preferred this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The prosecution allegation is that the accused, two in numbers, in the above crime after having trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, caught hold of her hand and uttered obscene words against her and while the de facto complainant cried out, her husband came to the spot and at that time, the accused beat her husband and thus, according to the prosecution, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 447,354,323 and 34 of I.P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the alleged incident had occurred on 29.6.2014, the crime was registered only on 8.7.2014 and there is substantial delay. According to the learned counsel, the said fact itself is sufficient to show that the petitioners are unnecessarily implicated in the above crime, since the husband of the de facto complainant is indebted to the accused connected with some monetary transactions. It is also the case of the counsel that the first accused in the above crime has been granted regular bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the accused caught hold of the hands of the de facto complainant, who is a lady, and therefore, considering the seriousness of the allegation, the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it is a fact beyond dispute that though the alleged incident had occurred on 29.6.2014, the crime was registered only on 8.7.2014 and there is no convincing explanation for the delay, which, according to me, indicates that there is some substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the crime was registered due to personal animosity. The first accused in the very same crime was granted regular bail.