NIBIN SHAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole applicant in B.A.No.7660/2019 and the sole applicant in B.A.No.7665/2019 have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 & 6 respectively among the six accused in the instant Crime No.1094/2019 of Kumarakom Police Station, Kottayam, registered for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 392, 308 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code . The crime has been registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the de facto complainant on 06.10.2019 at about 11 p.m. (the crime registered on the same day at 11.41 p.m.) in respect of the alleged incident which happened on the same day (06.10.2019) at about 5.30 p.m. in the evening.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the wife of A-6 (applicant in B.A.No.7665/2019) was earlier working as a Guest Lecturer in the Sree Narayana College, Kumarakom and her service was terminated upon the expiry of the contract and A-6 had entertained an apprehension that the de facto complainant in this case, who is working as a Clerk in the said service of the said college management, was actually behind the termination of her service and out of the said animosity, A-6 has a conspiracy with accused Nos.1 to 5 and pursuant to the said conspiracy, accused Nos.1 to 5 had criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant on 06.10.2019 at about 5.45 p.m. and had assaulted the de facto complainant, his wife, mother and a 2 1/2 year old child. That A-1 had assaulted the de facto complainant on his shoulder by using a plastic chair and when the de facto complainant had fell down, A-1 had taken a knife and inflicted injuries on his forehead. A-1 had beat and stamped the de facto complainant by using his hands. A-3 had lifted the child aged 2 1/2 years and thrown the child away. A-4 & A-5 had assaulted the wife and mother of the de facto complainant using chair. Besides, A-5 had forcibly pulled down the gold chain of the de facto complainant and robbed the same which weighed

(3.) sovereigns and thereby all the accused persons have committed the abovesaid offences. 3. Sri.S.Rajeev, learned counsel appearing for A-2 would submit that a mere reading of the First Information Statement would make it clear that A-2 has not been named in the FIS by the de facto complainant and further that no cogent materials have been collected by the Investigating Agency, so as to identify A-2 as an accused in the instant case. Further that, the version of the police that the instant FIS has been recorded on 06.10.2019 at about 11 p.m. and that the FIR was so registered on the same day at 11.41 p.m., etc. are not tenable for the simple reason that the records would make it clear that the FIR was actually transmitted and had reached the office of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kottayam only on 09.10.2019 and that the said delayed transmit of the FIR is the blatant violation of the provisions contained in Sec.157 (1) of the Cr.P.C . Further that, the truth of the matter is that the FIR and the FIS has been actually prepared after long delay on the basis of after thought and fabrication and that the names of some of the persons have been included in the FIS with detailed precision and the fact that the names and the nature of the activities done by some of the accused persons, as alleged in the FIS has been made with such precision would also clearly indicate that the description in the FIS has been made on a day subsequently to 06.10.2019 and immediately prior to 09.10.2019. Therefore that the FIS and the FIR are the products of fabrication and the versions therein cannot be taken at its face value and it lacks credibility. Whereas, Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das, learned counsel appearing for A-6 would submit that even according to the version of the de facto complainant in the FIS and the other prosecution materials, the involvement of A-6 in the crime is not in any manner mentioned or established and that A-6 has been implicated in the instant crime, only because A-4 happens to be the brother of A-6 and that there are no cogent materials collected by the Investigating Agency, so as to implicate the petitioner for the instant offence. Accordingly, the learned advocates who are appearing for their respective parties (A-2 & A-6) would submit that this Court may grant anticipatory bail to their parties, subject to any stringent conditions.