SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 5480 OF 2021 CRIME NO.798 OF 2021 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION IN KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PETITIONER:

AMALJITH S.BABU AGED 27 YEARS S/O.SURESH BABU U.V., SHINSHAJ HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOYILANDY P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 305.

BY ADVS.

T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR C.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE - 673 305.

OTHER PRESENT:

SR.PP - SMT. SREEJA V.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

03.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.798 of 2021 of Koyilandy Police Station in Kozhikode district, which was registered alleging offence under Sections 447, 341, 323, 294(b), 427, 506 of IPC and Section 3 read with 4 of the Kerala Health Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012. The petitioner has moved this Court under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The alleged incident had happened on 13.7.2021 at about

6.30pm. It is alleged that, the defacto complainant is running Speciality Poly Clinic near Bappangad Toll Plaza. Going by records the petitioner had trespassed into the said institution and assaulted and injured the defacto complainant and also caused damage to the furniture items and a car of the defacto complainant, and caused him loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the IPC offences are bailable where as offence under Section 3 of the said Act alone is non bailable. According to him the defacto complainant is the Manager of the said Poly Clinic; he does not come within the definition of the 'health service person' as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and the alleged the act of the petitioner will not come within the ambit of violence defined under Section 2(e) of the Act.

4. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. It is not necessary to go into the technicalities of the contentions raised by the learned counsel. It is alleged that the petitioner had trespassed into the said Poly Clinic which is a health care institution where acts of violence was done by the petitioner. The other aspects need to be considered only at the time of trial. In the nature of the allegations his custodial interrogation is not warranted. The petitioner submits that he will co-operate with the investigation.

In the circumstances, the petitioner shall be at liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and will make himself available for interrogation; in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; he shall co- operate with the investigation, shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and shall not involve in any crime during the period on bail.

Bail Application is allowed as above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top