VISHNUPRASAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the 6th accused in Crime No. 780/2014 of the Cheranallur Police Station, Ernakulam District, for offences under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 354, 324, 294(b), 506(ii) read with Sec. 149 IPC. The only non-bailable offence among the offences enumerated above is one under Sec. 354 IPC. The offence under Sec. 354 IPC is alleged in the FIR only as against accused No. 2. The version of the prosecution is that on 4.7.2014, the accused persons attacked the defacto complainant and attempted to outrage the modesty of the Principal of the Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kunnumpuram. It is the case of the petitioner that he is fully innocent of the allegations and that he is falsely implicated and on 4.7.2014, there was a scuffle between two football teams in a match being played in the school and in the said scuffle, the petitioner's brother, Sri. Krishnaprasad, was being attacked by the other team and on knowing about this scuffle, the Principal of the school intervened to prevent any further untoward incidents. Only on coming to know about the attack of his brother that the petitioner immediately rushed to the spot in order to know whether he has sustained any injury and that by that time, the brother of the accused, who is a school student, had been implicated as the 1st accused and the petitioner has been arrayed as the 6th accused respectively in the above said crime. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner has preferred this application for anticipatory bail invoking the remedy under Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Sri. K.R. Vinod, the learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly urge that the only non-bailable offence alleged in the aforementioned crime is one under Sec. 354 IPC and that the said offence under Sec. 354 has been alleged as against accused No. 2 and that no such allegation is admittedly raised as against the petitioner herein. The incident occurred in the aforementioned scuffle that took place between two teams that participated in a football match. The petitioner, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, had went to the scene only on coming to know about the attack on his brother by the members of the team and only to ascertain whether his brother had sustained any injury. The petitioner's application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, as per order dated 21.7.2014 as evidenced by Annexure A1.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that no offence under Sec. 354 IPC is alleged as against the petitioner and that the said offence is alleged only as against accused No. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that the investigation has not been completed and that accused No. 3 is absconding and that the steel knife said to have been used by accused No. 3 in the above said incident has to be recovered. The Prosecutor would further submit that the petitioner herein had used a motor cycle in the above said incident and the same has to be recovered from the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail in this case, but also submitted that in case this Court is so inclined to grant anticipatory bail, then the petitioner may be directed to forthwith surrender the motor cycle used in the incident before the investigating officer.