Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 20TH POUSHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 10752 OF 2023 CRIME NO.2244/2023 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: 1 SHINTO AGED 34 YEARS S/O. JOY, RESIDING AT PANAYAMCODE, THEKKATHIL, KANJIRAMCODE, KUNDARA.P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691501 2 RENJITH S.S.@ KUTTAPPAYI AGED 37 YEARS S/O. SUSSAMMA, RESIDING THETTIKUNNU LEKSHAM VEEDU, KANJIRACODE,MULAVANA, KUNDARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691501 BY ADV S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM) RESPONDENTS/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KUNDARA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP SMT SEETHA S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in crime
No.2244/2023 of the Kundara Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused alleging them to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 506, 323, 324 and 308 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, Section 307 of IPC has been incorporated in the crime.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: on 23.11.2023 at about 10.30 p.m the accused attacked the defacto complainant and his son with an iron rod and a sword. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
4. Heard Sri.S. Sreekumar (Kollam), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Seetha S, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. At any rate, the offence under Section 308 will not stand attracted. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. They are willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed.
6. The application is vehemently opposed by the learned
Public Prosecutor. She submitted that the first accused has criminal antecedents. He is involved in six other crimes. The prosecution allegation is grave. Accused had assaulted the defacto complainant and had caused grievous injuries to him. Consequently, the investigating officer has incorporated Section 307 of IPC. The petitioners' custodial interrogation is necessary for a proper investigation in the case. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the
materials placed on record and after going through the case diary, particularly, the treatment summary of the defacto complainant dated 07.12.2023 which shows that the defacto complainant had sustained a head injury and injury was sutured, I am of the definite view that this is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
8. Nonetheless, I direct that, in the event of the
petitioners surrendering before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today, they shall be interrogated and, thereafter, they be produced before the jurisdictional Court on the date of surrender itself. Then, if the petitioners move an application for
bail, the jurisdictional Court shall, untrammelled by any observations in this order, consider the bail application on its merits and as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioners do not surrender before the Investigating Officer as directed above, the Investigating Officer shall be free to arrest the petitioners as if no
order has been passed in this case.
Sd/- C.S.DIAS JUDGE shg