Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 5TH ASWINA, 1943 CRIME NO.1207 OF 2021 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED :- HAREESH M.A AGED 25 YEARS S/O. MANILAL, RAJESH BHAVANAM, ELAMANNOOR MURI, ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE, ELAMANNOOR P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 524 BY ADVS. MANU RAMACHANDRAN M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH (VARKALA) T.S.SARATH SAMEER M NAIR RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT :- 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 523 SMT.SREEJA.V -SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.1207 of 2021 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :- The nephew of the defacto complainant was constructing a residential house at Enadimangalam village. This petitioner used to enter into the house
under construction unnecessarily and cause disturbance. The same was questioned by the defacto complainant. Infuriated by the same, on 02.07.2021 while the defacto complainant was returning from a shop, he was wrongfully restrained by this petitioner and brutally manhandled by him. He was beaten on his cheek and hit with a stone. When he fell down, he also kicked on his chest, stomach with his legs and hit with a stone. Thereby, he sustained fracture to four ribs on the right side, three ribs on the left side of his chest and injuries to the back born apart
from the other injuries. A gold chain of one sovereign along with a sum of Rs.2,600/- and two mobile phones were also taken away by the petitioner and thus caused monetary loss of Rs.40,000/- apart from the injuries caused to him. Thereby, this petitioner has booked for the aforesaid offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that in fact the defacto complainant is a habitual drunkard and he used to pick up quarrels with the public quite often. On the relevant day also, he quarreled with the petitioner for no reason and he fell down and sustained some injuries. But this petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
5. It is further submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that though the alleged incident was on 02.07.2021, he was given statement only on the next day and he visited the hospital at about 05.00 pm on 03.07.2021. That itself shows that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the alleged incident and he himself fell down and sustained injuries.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instruction
submits that the defacto complainant is aged 53 years and his parents are no more and he is an unmarried man. So he is residing all alone in his residential house. His nephew is constructing a building near to his residence and it is under his supervision. This petitioner used to create nuisance by entering into the building under construction and so he questioned the same. Only because of the same, he had attacked the defacto complainant while he was returning from a shop at about 07.30 pm. As he was residing alone and his two mobile phones were lost while he was attacked by the petitioner, he had to remain in his house suffering the intensive pain and only on the next day when a relative reached there, he was removed to the
hospital. He was firstly taken to the General Hospital at Adoor and as the injuries sustained by him are very grievous and severe, he was referred to the Medical College Hospital and he had to remain there for a few days and thereafter, he was sent back to the Government Hospital, Adoor. He remained there for another couple of days and then only he was discharged from the hospital.
7. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the delay in lodging the F.I.Statement by the defacto complainant has been satisfactorily explained by him. Now the investigation of the case is only in the preliminary stage and hence granting of bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. A perusal of the wound certificate of the defacto complainant dated 03.07.2021 issued from the
General Hospital, Adoor has been produced by the learned Public Prosecutor. The injuries sustained by him have been described in the wound certificate. It shows that he sustained undisplaced fracture of 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs on the right side of his body and undisplaced fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs on the left side. Apart from fracture, he has also sustained contusion over his neck, chest and tenderness over
his hip and all over the body. Since injuries sustained by him were found very serious in nature, he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, where he was admitted and treated till 31.07.2021. Thereafter, also he had to continue his treatment in the Government Hospital, Adoor.
9. The wound certificate itself shows the
gravity and seriousness of the injuries suffered by him from the hands of the petitioner. Having regard to the nature of the injuries caused to the defacto complainant as well the other
facts and circumstances involved in this case, I do
not find any justification to accept the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and to grant pre-arrest bail. Pre-arrest bail can be granted to the accused only if it is found that custodial interrogation is not required. The weapon used to inflict the fatal injuries has to be recovered. Here, considering the nature of accusation levelled against
this petitioner, the seriousness of the offences committed by him to a person, who is residing all alone at his residence, I do not think that it is proper to accept the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As no grounds have been made out to extend the discretionary power of this court, the request is rejected and this application
dismissed. The investigating agency has to apprehend him at the earliest and proceed with the case. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE SMA