Rajan Kannat @ Thomas Varghese vs State Of Kerala

K. Haripal, J

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the accused in crime No.459/2021 of Chengannur police station, Alappuzha which was registered

on 06.07.2021 alleging offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 353 and 341 r/w 34 of the IPC. Petitioners are father and son. The first petitioner is

the Councilor of Chengannur Municipality whereas the second petitioner is a lawyer by profession. The petitioners are running a jewellery shop in the

shop rooms bearing Nos.17, 18 and 19 in the Chengannur Municipal shopping complex. The crime was registered on the basis of the first information

statement given by the Secretary of the Municipal Corporation. Going by the first information statement, noticing certain illegal constructions made by

the petitioners in front of the said shopping complex owned by the Municipality, the Junior Health Inspector and party were instructed to remove such

constructions. The defacto complainant also went there at 7.30 a.m. for giving necessary directions to the officials of the Municipality. While the

illegal and unauthorised constructions were being removed, the petitioners came there in a car and abused him. At first the first petitioner fisted on his

chest and caused obstruction to the discharge of his official duties. At the same time, the second petitioner attacked him with a wooden reaper aiming

at his head, which he resisted. The first petitioner then pushed him down and stamped on his back. Earlier he had closed an unauthorised way created

by the petitioners by demolishing the eastern boundary wall of the Municipal bus stand and he was assaulted and injured out of that animosity.

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to Annexure-1 resolution adopted by the Municipal Council by majority, requesting the

Government to remove the defacto complainant from the post of Secretaryship. By Annexure-2 letter the Chairperson has already addressed the

Director of Municipalities, along with the said resolution, requesting to transfer the petitioner from the Municipality. According to the learned counsel,

the Secretary was found acting in a partisan manner which made the Council to adopt such a resolution; the defacto complainant is dancing to the

tunes of certain vested interests. They have also filed a suit against the Secretary seeking injunction and damages.

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. According to her, though the first petitioner is a member of the Municipal Council,

noticing the unauthorised constructions made in front of the leasehold rooms which were not removed even after specific directions, officials of the

Municipality themselves removed the constructions; the defacto complainant had gone there to oversee the work and then the petitioners reached

there, attacked him and caused him injuries. The second petitioner had used a wooden reaper which requires to be recovered. The learned Public

Prosecutor also made available the records in the crime which indicate that immediately after the incident the defacto complainant had obtained

treatment from the General Hospital, Chengannur.

The records indicate that the crime was registered on the strength of the first information statement given by Narayanan, the Secretary of

Chengannur Municipality. There may be reasons for ire between the Municipal Councilor and the Secretary. But it is specifically stated that he had

gone to the place of occurrence for overseeing the work of demolishing the unauthorised constructions made by the petitioners in front of the rooms

which are in the occupation of the petitioners on lease. The defacto complainant had gone there in his capacity as the Secretary of the Municipality, in

discharge of his official functions. Apparently, the petitioners who reached the place did not relish the acts and thus attacked the defacto complainant.

Records indicate that the first petitioner had manhandled the defacto complainant by fisting on his chest and also by kicking him. In the nature of the

allegations it does not seem that his custodial interrogation would serve any purpose so long as he did not use any weapon of offence. There is no

identity crisis also so that there is no impediment in granting anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. He is at liberty to surrender before the Investigating

Officer within ten days from today and will make himself available for interrogation; in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing

bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; he

shall co-operate with the investigation, shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence; shall not involve in any crime

during the period on bail.

But such a treatment cannot be given to the second petitioner who had allegedly used a wooden reaper against the defacto complainant and caused

him injuries. For the smooth investigation of the case, the weapon of offence has to be recovered, which is possible only on his custodial interrogation.

That means, the application filed by the second petitioner cannot be allowed.

The bail application is allowed in part.