HASSAN @ HASSAN KURIKKAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in Crime No.728 of 2015 of the Sreekrishnapuram Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, 427 and 120(B) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. He seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application filed by him for regular bail was dismissed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ottapalam on 4.11.2016. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 27.10.2016.

(2.) The prosecution case is that under the false pretext of settling a financial issue, the complainant herein was brought to the institution of the 1st accused where he was mentally harassed by the accused Nos.1 to 3, and six other identifiable persons at about 5.00 p.m on 21.09.2015, and they inflicted simple and serious injuries on the body of the complainant, and his friend in an attempt on their life. On a perusal of the case diary including the complaint, I B.A No.8118 of 2016 find that severe injuries sustained by the victim and his friend were in fact inflicted by the accused Nos.1 to 3. As regards the other six identifiable persons mentioned in the F.I.R, the complaint does not contain any specific clue or details. It will have to be examined thoroughly how the other six were identified during investigation. The accused Nos.1 and 3 were granted bail long back, and the 7th accused was granted bail on 7.11.2016. The petitioner is said to be the person who brought the victim at the place of incident under false pretext, and the serious injuries were mainly inflicted by the accused Nos.1 and 3. The medical documents in the name of the complainant shows that he had sustained some injuries on the various parts of his body, and the other injured Ashbah had sustained fracture of his left zygoma and also fracture of left tibia. The petitioner is practically the person who perpetrated the crime, though the serious injuries were inflicted by the accused Nos.1 and 3. Anyway, on a perusal of the case diary, I find that investigation is practically over.

(3.) This application is opposed by the learned Public B.A No.8118 of 2016 Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the investigation.