Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of premeditation and no serious threat posed by the accused, with conditions imposed to ensure cooperation with the investigation.

ORDER :

(T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.)

1. The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the petitioner/accused herein to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 7 of 2024 of Nandigam Police Station, Srikakulam District.

2. A case has been registered against the petitioner herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC').

3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 07.01.2024 at about 19.00 hours, the incident occurred at Peddabanapuram Village, Nandigam Mandal, wherein the accused beat with a ring of his finger on the right eye of complainant, as a result of which the complainant got swollen injuries over right eye and that the accused also threatened to do away with the life of the complainant if he raises alarms, as the complainant was drying clothes on the combined wall between their houses.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that the petitioner/accused has been falsely implicated in the case and the petitioner is no way concerned with the commission of the offence. He further submits that a false case has been implicated against the petitioner/accused, as such prays to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor confirms non-filing of charge sheet by the Police and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the investigation is at crucial stage.

6. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, I have carefully gone through the material on record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that the petitioner is an Ex-Army employee and he never involved in any illegal activities or criminal activities and there is a dispute between the family of the accused and defacto complainant regarding the boundary wall, as per the report lodged by the complainant also, the defacto complainant/injured can be considered as aggressor and the dispute is pending between both the parties as he highhandedly putting wet clothes on the wall. The petitioner did not use any weapon to cause injury to the defacto complainant, but unfortunately, as the petitioner was wearing hand ring at that time, the said ring allegedly contacted the right eye and caused injury to the defacto complainant/injured. It is contended that the petitioner has no intention to cause any injury to the defacto complainant and he also submits that the ring cannot be considered as a deadly weapon and the ingredients of Section 326 of IPC will not attract to the facts of the present case and even if the case of the prosecution is assumed to be proved, a custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required to ascertain the nature of the weapon as the report is specific and clear that the ring worn by the petitioner caused injury to the defacto complainant.

8. The essential ingredients to attract Section 326 I.P.C. are:

(1) voluntarily causing a hurt;

(2) hurt caused must be a grievous hurt; and

(3) the grievous hurt must have been caused by dangerous weapons or means.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1956 of 2008 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1418 of 2008 reported the decision in the State of U.P. vs. Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha (2000(7) SCC 249) held that there is no such thing as a regular or earmarked weapon for committing murder or for that matter a hurt. Whether a particular article can per se cause any serious wound or grievous hurt or injury has to be determined factually.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be observed that dangerous weapon is used by the commission of the offence. According to his submission, the ingredients of Section 335 of IPC may attract to the facts of the case, if the contents of the complainant are assumed to be true and correct.

11. T