1. This petitioner who is the first accused in Crime No.1207 of 2020 of Alappuzha North Police Station along with accused 3 and 4 have filed an
application for pre-arrest bail before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. The application with respect to this petitioner was rejected, but pre-arrest bail
was granted to the other accused. Hence, the petitioner is before this court with this petition.
2. The crime was registered against this petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452,294(b), 323, 324, 354,
427 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution allegation is that the father of the defacto complainant is running a shop near his residence. On 22.12.2020 at about 21.30 hours
this petitioner along with the other accused have criminally trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant as the father of the defacto
complainant refused to give mineral water and mixture to this petitioner in violation of Covid-19 protocol. As he was supposed to close the shop by
9.00 p.m as per the regulations that was in force imposed by the Government due to Covid-19, the demand made by this petitioner was refused by the
father of the defacto complainant. Infuriated by the same, this petitioner along with the other accused have trespassed into the residential house and
manhandled the defacto complainant, his brother and mother and caused injuries to them. They have also used criminal force with the intention to
outrage the modesty of the mother of the defacto complainant and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner ,the learned counsel for the defacto complainant as well the learned public prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defacto complainant was entertaining enmity towards the 6th accused,his neighbor . The 6th
accused had invited the petitioner to his residence and there was a get together with his friends on that particular night. But the allegation that he
manhandled the defacto complainant, his parents as well his brother are absolutely false and baseless. He is an Engineering graduate now pursuing his
post graduation and he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. The defacto complainant is a police personnel. Few days before the
incident some unforeseen incident had happened in which the policemen had questioned this petitioner for having parked his motor cycle in the public
road alleging that he had obstructed the police jeep. The police men and the driver of the police jeep questioned him and they created a scene there.
But due to the intervention of the local public they left the place and that was the only reason for having booked him in this false case. But he
apprehends arrest and hence, the application.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor as well the learned counsel for the defacto complainant have refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and contended that in fact this petitioner is having criminal antecedents and he had committed the alleged offence without any
provocation and if he is released on bail there is every possibility to tamper with the evidence and abscond causing obstacles to the smooth progress of
the investigation of the case .
7. Of course, it is revealed that this petitioner is involved in two other cases. Out of the two cases, one case has been settled and the other case is
pending against this petitioner apart from the present crime. Prima facie the records would reveal that the alleged incident had taken place as the
father of the defacto complainant refused to open the shop and give the articles demanded by the petitioner and the other accused in violation of the
Covid protocol. There is justification for his refusal to do so. But the copy of the wound certificates would reveal that the injuries sustained by all the
injured are minor in nature. None of them have sustained serious injuries in the alleged incident. It appears from the sequence of events that the
alleged incident happened all on a sudden on a spur of the moment and was not a premeditated one committed with an intention to attack them.
8. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant, his parents and brother, the role of the petitioner and the other
facts involved, I do not find materials on record to think that custodial interrogation is inevitable to proceed with the investigation of the case.
Therefore, this bail application is disposed of directing this petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer on 6.3.2021 at 11.00 a.m. Upon such
surrender he has to be interrogated after recording his arrest and thereafter he has to be produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on the very
same day and the learned Magistrate shall release him on bail on the very same day subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like
sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in connection with the above crime. One surety shall be a close relative of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him in writing. He shall co-operate with the
investigation of the case.
(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.
