Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 23796
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
JAYAKUTTAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./8994/2022
The denial of anticipatory bail reflects the court's prioritization of the seriousness of allegations and the potential danger posed by the accused.
Headnote:
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - IPC Sections 323, 324, 341, 326, 506 - The court denied anticipatory bail based on the serious nature of allegations and the use of a weapon causing severe injuries, ruling that the petitioner must surrender and cooperate with investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is accused of causing bodily harm to the informant using a metal bangle during an altercation arising from previous enmity, resulting in significant injuries including fractures.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the allegations serious, noting the extent of injuries sustained by the informant and the petitioner's prior involvement in other criminal cases, leading to the denial of bail.
Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted considering the severity of the charges and the nature of the injuries inflicted upon the informant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the nature and extent of injuries inflicted, and the need for the petitioner to cooperate with the investigative process.
Final Decision: Anticipatory bail application denied.
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail.
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1057 of 2022 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 341, 326 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code .
3. The prosecution allegation is that on 03.11.2022 at 8.20 p.m., the petitioner, with the deliberate intention to cause bodily harm to the informant, inflicted injuries on the body of the informant due to the enmity between them which arose when the informant forbade the petitioner from speaking bad words in public on the occasion of 28th Onam festival. The physical injury was caused with the use of a metal bangle worn by the accused, when the informant was standing near Kunnathalummoodu Beverages outlet. The petitioner hit hard on the left cheek of the informant and also restrained the informant from going anywhere and then continuously hit the informant's head, chest, cheek and stomach. This resulted in the right molar of the informant being half chipped and inflicted three factures to the mandible (jaw bone). By intimidating and threatening the informant, the petitioner caused serious bodily harm to him. Thus the accused has committed the abovesaid offences.
4. Petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the abovesaid crime and that even going by the prosecution allegations, offence punishable under Section 326 IPC will not lie inasmuch as the alleged weapon used is a steel bangle.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that the defacto complainant was brutally attacked by the petitioner and he sustained three fractures and lost teeth also. Learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions further submitted that the petitioner is involved in two other criminal cases. To the said submission learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as regards Crime No.2672 of 2018, it has been settled.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the allegations, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the very same day. If an application for bail is filed with prior notice to the Public Prosecutor, the jurisdictional Magistrate may consider the bail application preferably on the very same day.
