SANTHOSH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.3 among the five accused in the instant Crime No.293/2019 of Kambalakkad Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 427, 448 and 34 of the IPC on the basis of the F.I. Statement given by the defacto complainant on 26.7.2019 at about 5 p.m in respect of the alleged incident, which had happened on 25.7.2019 at about 8 p.m. The accused No.1 in this case is a juvenile, who has already been granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board. Accused 2, 4 and 5 have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court concerned as discernible from Annexure-A order dated 27.8.2019 rendered by the Sessions Court, Kalpetta in Crl.M.C.No.564/2019. The only non-bailable offence alleged in this case is the one as per Section 354 of the IPC. It is beyond any factual dispute that there are no allegations attracting the offence as per Section 354 of the IPC in the First Information Statement given by the defacto complainant in this case. After the registration of the crime, an additional Section 161 statement has been taken by the Police from the wife of the defacto complainant, wherein she has stated that towards the fag end of the incidents, when the accused persons had blocked the car of her husband (defacto complainant) and attempted to assault her husband, she had tried to intervene, then the petitioner herein (A3) had caught hold of her hand. Indisputably the said allegations made by her in the Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Statement given subsequently are said to have happened in the presence of her husband, who is the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant has not chosen to make any such allegations in his First Information Statement, copy of which has already been produced by the Prosecutor along with his memo. Accordingly, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above said additional allegations made by the wife of the defacto complainant, subsequent to the registration of the crime, is only an improvement or embellishment of the original case, as all the offences alleged as against the petitioner in the F.I.S. would have disclosed only bailable offences and it is only to entrap the petitioner in a non-bailable case that the instant additional allegations have been made and that too not by the defacto complainant but by his wife. Further it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for effectuating the investigation in this crime and that this Court may anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to any stringent conditions.

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the plea for anticipatory bail and has submitted that the petitioner is involved in five other crimes.

(3.) However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that in all the above said crimes, in which he has been implicated, the respective first informants/defacto complainants are close relatives of the present defacto complainant and all the offences arising in those crimes are predominantly those arising under the Kerala Police Act, 2011.