MANIYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. C.D. produced.

(3.) The petitioners 1 to 4 are accused 6, 7, 3 and 4 respectively in Crime No. 1039 of 2014 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 420 and 394 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is aged 65 years and suffering from psychological problems. The second petitioner, aged 50 years, is his wife. The third petitioner is the daughter -in -law of the petitioners 1 and 2 and the fourth petitioner is their daughter. The petitioners are innocent of the allegations raised against them. The investigation of the case is almost over. The serious allegations have been raised only against the accused 1 and 2. No such serious allegations have been made against the petitioners 3 and 4. The names of the petitioners 1 and 2 were not mentioned as accused in the First Information Statement which was lodged after two days of the alleged occurrence. They were subsequently roped in this case for the reasons best known to the Investigating Agency. In 2014, the son -in -law of the petitioners 1 and 2 was severely manhandled by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjiramkulam Police Station, while he was driving an autorickshaw. As a result, the autorickshaw toppled and he succumbed to the injuries sustained in that accident for which Kanjiramkulam Police has registered Crime No. 884 of 2014. Several agitations have been staged against the high -handed action on the part of the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjiramkulam Police Station. Now, that case has been entrusted with the Crime Branch CID for investigation. In order to pressurise the wife of the deceased to withdraw the complaint against the Sub Inspector of Police, the petitioners 1 and 2 are roped in as accused 6 and 7 baselessly. The occurrence in this case allegedly happened on 3.12.2014. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required in this case. If it was required, they could have been arrested much before. Now, the police, for the purpose of pressurising the daughter of the petitioners 1 and 2 for withdrawing her complaint against the police, is moving against the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners apprehend arrest by the police at any time, submits the learned counsel.