Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36825
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK MENON, J
ABOOBACKER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./3599/2021
Sri. Anil K. Muhammed, Sri. Santhosh Peter, Sr. Public Prosecutor
Anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. when the applicant is elderly, has no criminal record, and the case background indicates non-seriousness.
Headnote:
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Cr.P.C. Section 438 - The court interpreted the provisions of anticipatory bail, considering the applicant's age, lack of criminal history, and the nature of the familial dispute, ultimately allowing the bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, an elderly man, faced charges under Sections 323 and 307 of IPC following an altercation with his son, the de facto complainant, regarding family matters. The applicant sought anticipatory bail, claiming the allegations were false.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no previous criminal history for the applicant and noted that the case reflected a familial dispute rather than a serious criminal matter, determining that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the applicant's age, absence of prior offenses, and the circumstances of the alleged crime in granting anticipatory bail, prioritizing personal liberty in less severe situations.
Final Decision: Anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
O R D E R
Dated this the 17th day of June 2021 This is an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
The applicant, who is a 71 years old man, is the sole accused in Crime No.246/2021 of Kalamassery Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 307 r/w Section
34 of I.P.C.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant, the father of the de facto complainant, but they were not on good terms. The reason was that the de facto complainant was neglecting his wife and children and the applicant was taking care of them. The de facto complainant was a prodigal son and was appropriating all the gold ornaments belonging to his wife. This deed of his was objected to by the applicant. On 28.03.2021, at about 10.15 A.M., the de facto complainant came to the house of the applicant and they had an altercation followed by a scuffle. On hearing the same, the 2nd accused and many others came there and tried to intervene. It is stated that the applicant and the 2nd accused also assaulted the de facto complainant and thereafter when the de facto complainant was returning on his motorcycle, the applicant allegedly attempted to murder him by dashing his Innova car against his motorcycle.
3. The applicant says that the allegations are not true. In fact, it was the de facto complainant who had hit him and also dashed his motorcycle against the car of the applicant, for the simple reason that he was protecting his daughter-in-law and grandchildren. There is also a civil dispute pending between them. There was no intention to the applicant to commit his murder and he has not hit the car deliberately. It was only an accident and therefore the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It appears to be a dispute between the father and son with regard to the protection given to daughter-in-law and grandchildren by the applicant. He is 71 years old, and custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation and hence the application is allowed.
In the event of the applicant being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.
