Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE12H DAY OF NOVEMBER201321ST KARTHIKA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 7523 of 2013 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1473/2013 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION , THRISSUR DISTRICT ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- BHASKARAN,S/O.VELAPPAN, AGED58YEARS, PULLANICKAL HOUSE, CHITTISSERY DESOM, NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHUKKAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1211-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.BHAVADASAN, J.
--------------------------------------- Bail Application No.7523 OF2013--------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2013. ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1473/2013 of Puthukkad Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 324, 326 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 16.10.2013 at about 6 p.m, he trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, abused her and assaulted her and when her son came to her rescue, he was also attacked.
2. The petitioner would say that the allegations are totally false and have been cooked up for the purpose of the case. According to him, there was a pending boundary dispute between the parties and on the date of the incident, there was an incident near the boundary of the properties and in that incident, the victim fell down and suffered minor injuries and that has been exaggerated so as to suit the convenience of the de facto complainant. It is also pointed out that offence under B.A.No.7523/2013 2 Section 326 IPC has been deliberately incorporated to see that the petitioner is denied bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the son of the de facto complainant sustained a fracture injury on the skull. It is also pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be countenanced. He is alleged to have caused injuries by using a hammer. A deeper probe into the veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time.
5. Suffice to say that, considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, the manner in which the offences were committed, the weapon used, the injuries caused and also the fact that the investigation is at an infant stage, this Court is precluded from exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The application is only to be dismissed and I do so. B.A.No.7523/2013 3 However, if the petitioner is so advised, he may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 19.11.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the Court concerned who, on an application of bail being moved by the petitioner, shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.