KUTTAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein stand arrayed as accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 3 respectively in Crime No.840/2018 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 308 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It was alleged by the prosecution that on 27.9.2018 at 7 pm., the petitioners herein wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted the defacto complainant. It was alleged that the first accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and slapped on his cheek. The second accused hit his head against the wall and that the remaining accused wrongfully restrained him. The second accused allegedly hit on the right palm with a sharp weapon and hit on the neck with an iron rod. Complaint was laid, crime was registered and investigation is progressing. Apprehending arrest, the petitioners seek bail.

(3.) It seems that main allegations are attributed to the first and second accused. Even though, there is an allegation that the second accused used a sharp weapon to inflict injury on the right palm, there is no such corresponding injury except an abrasion. On the other hand there is a contusion on the neck which corresponds with other overt act attributed to the second accused of having hit on the neck with an iron rod. There is a corresponding contusion on the neck. Virtually, it seems to be only substantial injury. No specific overt act is attributed to the accused Nos.4 and 3 respectively. Petitioners have no criminal antecedents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it was the defacto complainant herein who attacked the petitioners and two separate crimes have been registered at the instance of the petitioners. The above crimes are 828/2018 of Chavara Thekkumbhagom Police Station and 845/2018 of the same police station. The certified copies of the above FIRs were produced by the learned counsel to contend that the complaints were laid by them and only as an afterthought the present crime was registered. The bail application of the second petitioner, who is the second accused is dismissed. Hence I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1, 3 and 4, who are the accused Nos.1, 4 and 3 respectively on the following conditions: