JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications are filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicants respectively are the 4 th and 2nd accused involved in crime No.2065/2017 of Pallithottam Police Station, Kollam.

(2.) The allegations against the applicants are that on 26.11.2017 at 10 p.m, due to prior animosity, along with other accused they abused and assaulted the de facto complainant near H & C compound and inflicted with injuries. Based on the allegations, the crime in question was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w Section 34 IPC. Out of apprehension of being arrested in the crime the applicants approached this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking pre-arrest bail. This Court vide order dated 11.07.2018 in B.A.No.4440/2018 was pleased to grant pre-arrest bail to the 2 nd applicant alone.

(3.) According to Sri.Nobel Raju, the learned counsel, in the order granting pre-arrest bail to the 2 nd accused in Crime No.2065/17, this Court had directed him to appear before the investigating officer within 10 days from 11.07.2018 to undergo interrogation. According to the learned counsel, the 2 nd accused in Crime No.2065/17 was arrested in Crime No.585/18 on 17.07.2018 and that was the reason for his non-appearance before the investigating officer as directed in the order granting pre arrest bail. According to the counsel, he was produced before the court after the arrest in Crime No.589/18 and remanded to judicial custody. In view of the violation of the conditions of bail order in Crime No.2065/17, his arrest was recorded therein on 01.08.2018. It is contended by the learned counsel that the 4th accused in Crime 2065/17, who was declined anticipatory bail has also applied for regular bail now. He was arrested on 17.07.2018 and produced before the court on 18.07.2018 and remanded to judicial custody since then. It is contended by him that the failure on the part of the 2nd applicant (2nd accused) to comply with the direction in the bail order granted on 11.07.2018 was not due to any wilful default from his side but due to his arrest in crime No. 589/2018. It is contended that, since there was no wilful default, this Court is perfectly justified in granting bail to him in the aforesaid crime. According to him, even as per the allegations, the role of the 4 th applicant (4th accused) was only that he blowed the iron rod in his possession, which did not touch the body of the defacto complainant due to warding off. According to him, he had also served custody from 18.07.2018.