IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 5437 OF 2024 CRIME NO.422/2024 OF PALLITHOTTAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

SAJAN @ SHAJAN AGED 35 YEARS S/O BABU; RESIDING AT: 44/815, THONDALIL PURAYIDAM, BEACH SOUTH, JONAKAPURAM, PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691006 BY ADVS.

R.RAJESH (VARKALA)

M.KIRANLAL MANU RAMACHANDRAN SAMEER M NAIR T.S.SARATH SAILAKSHMI MENON JOTHISHA K.A.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT:

SR PP SMT NEEMA T V THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

11.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2024

O R D E R

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’, for short), for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.422/2024 of the Pallithottam Police Station, Kollam, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC).

3. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on

20.06.2024, at around 19.30 hours, while the de facto complainant was having a casual chat with one Ummar, the accused, without any particular reason or provocation, uttered obscene words at the de facto complainant and hit the defacto complainant with a stone on his head. It is only because the de facto complainant evaded the attack, he did not lose his life.

Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.Rajesh R, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 308 of the IPC, to see that the petitioner is arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The de facto complainant was in an inebriated stage and he fell down on the grounds while negotiating a curve. The de facto complainant shouted at the petitioner and Ummar and he was taken to his house by Ummar. The de facto complainant is a local leader of the ruling party and the petitioner is in the opposition faction. It is out of the said animosity, that the present complaint is filed. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that there are incriminating materials to establish that the petitioner has committed the above offences. She made available the casualty record of the de facto complainant issued by the Government Medical College Hospital, Kollam dated 20.06.2024, to substantiate the injuries suffered by the de facto complainant. She also stated that the petitioner is an inveterate offender, since he is involved in six other crimes of a similar nature of the very same police station. The petitioner is in the rowdy list and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the injured as well as the witnesses and tampering with evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

7. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he had uttered obscene words at the de facto complainant and assaulted him with a stone and inflicted injuries on him. This accusation prima facie stands corroborated by the treatment records of the injured. Nonetheless, that is a matter to be investigated and decided at the time of trial. The materials placed on record also show that the petitioner is involved in six other crimes of the very same police station, and is included in the rowdy list. Therefore, there is no doubt that the petitioner is a habitual offender.

8. Recently, in Srikant Upadhyay