Devanath vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 26, 2021

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1589475

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1589475
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Shircy V.
Decided On: Feb 26, 2021
Case Number: Bail Appl./22/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devanath

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....police station, idukki district registered for the offences punishable under sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i), 354 r/w section 34 of the indian penal code.3. the prosecution allegation is as follows : on 20.11.2020 at about 03.00 p.m the defactocomplainant, who is a retired sub inspector of police was waiting for a bus along with his wife in a bus waiting shed at kulamavu. at that time, this petitioner along with the other accused came there and wrongfully restrained them and abused them in filthy language and also attempted to outrage the modesty of the wife of the defacto complainant. this petitioner had twisted the arms of the wife of the defacto complainant andpushed her down. thereby this petitioner and other accused have committed the aforesaid offences.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned public prosecutor.5. the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has been falsely implicated in the case by the undue influence of the defacto complainant, whois a retired police officer. in fact he has not committed any offence as alleged and he has no connection with other accused also. but he apprehendsarrest and unnecessary torture from the police as the defacto complainant is a retired police officer. hence this application.6. the learned public prosecutor would point out that this petitioner is having criminal background as he is involved in 5 other cases registered before the very same police station. so according to him he is not a person entitled for pre-arrest bail.7. the criminal antecedents of this petitionerwould show that he is creating nuisance and disturbance to the peaceful life of the public in that locality though he is aged only 30 years. he is a resident of kulamavu and he is well aware of the fact that thedefacto complainant is a retired police officer. still records would indicate that prima facie he has committed the offences.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942 CRIME NO.494/2020 OF Kulamavu Police Station , Idukki PETITIONER :- DEVANATH AGED 30 YEARS KALLADAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KULAMAVU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR RESPONDENT : STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA SRI AJITH MURALI-PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 26th day of February 2021 Application for pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime

No.494 of 2020 of Kulamavu Police Station, Idukki District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i), 354 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution allegation is as follows : On 20.11.2020 at about 03.00 p.m the defacto

complainant, who is a retired sub inspector of police was waiting for a bus along with his wife in a bus waiting shed at Kulamavu. At that time, this petitioner along with the other accused came there and wrongfully restrained them and abused them in filthy language and also attempted to outrage the modesty of the wife of the defacto complainant. This petitioner had twisted the arms of the wife of the defacto complainant and

pushed her down. Thereby this petitioner and other accused have committed the aforesaid offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has been falsely implicated in the case by the undue influence of the defacto complainant, who

is   a    retired   police    officer.   In    fact      he    has   not
committed     any   offence    as    alleged       and    he   has   no
connection with other accused also. But he                 apprehends

arrest and unnecessary torture from the police as the defacto complainant is a retired police officer. Hence this application.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that this petitioner is having criminal background as he is involved in 5 other cases registered before the very same police station. So according to him he is not a person entitled for pre-arrest bail.

7. The criminal antecedents of this petitioner

would show that he is creating nuisance and disturbance to the peaceful life of the public in that locality though he is aged only 30 years. He is a resident of Kulamavu and he is well aware of the fact that the

defacto complainant is a retired police officer. Still records would indicate that prima facie he has committed the offences towards the wife of the defacto complainant in broad day light. Considering the nature of the accusation levelled against this petitioner and his criminal antecedents, I do not find any justification to exercise the discretion of this court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of this petitioner. Therefore, I think that this application can be

disposed of directing the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating officer on 04.03.2021 at 10.30 am. Upon such surrender, after interrogation, and after recording his arrest, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the very same day. If a bail application is moved by him, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the the same without much delay.

Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE SMA

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Devanath vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Shircy V.