Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35647
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
PRINCE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./7719/2022
Anticipatory bail can be denied in serious cases where custodial interrogation is essential for the ongoing investigation.
Headnote:
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - IPC Section List - The court discussed Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC, evaluating the severity of the alleged offenses, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and the balance of protection against public safety in deciding on the anticipatory bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is accused in a case of assault where the defacto complainant alleges being attacked by the petitioner leading to significant injuries, including a fracture. The petitioner claims he was actually attacked first.
Finding of the Court:
The court found it inappropriate to grant anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation, but permitted the petitioner to surrender and directed prompt handling of bail requests post-arrest.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in light of the allegations and circumstances surrounding the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that anticipatory bail is not warranted where serious allegations exist and investigation requires custodial questioning.
Final Decision: Anticipatory bail application denied; petitioner directed to surrender and cooperate with investigation.
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail.
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.
891/2022 of Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha District registered alleging commission of the offences under Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC .
3. The prosecution case is that, on 16.09.2022 at about 6.00 pm, the accused out of enmity towards the defacto complainant as the latter had filed a complaint against the accused before the Mavelikkara Police, hit the defacto complainant several times with a square tube on his back, and when the defacto complainant tried to block the blow with his right hand, it caused a fracture on his right elbow, and thus the accused committed the above said offences.
4. The petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the above said crime. The case of the petitioner is that he was brutally attacked by the defacto complainant in connection with an ongoing dispute between the auto rickshaw drivers holding parking permit and those not having such permit to park their contract carriage in the auto stand near the Mavelikkara Bus Stand.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the defacto complainant was brutally attacked by the petitioner for submitting a complaint against him before the police that he used to create nuisance in the auto stand after consuming alcohol. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that in the said attack defacto complainant sustained injuries including fracture on his hand and further submits that recoveries are yet to be effected and custodial interrogation is required. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, but I feel that the bail application can be disposed of with the following directions:
The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and shall co-operate with the investigation. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, after interrogation, he shall be produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on the very same day. If an application for bail is moved with prior notice to the Public Prosecutor, same shall be considered by the learned Magistrate preferably on the same day.
