Full Judgment
BAIL APPL. NO. 7724 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 7724 OF 2021 (CRIME NO.183 OF 2021 OF AGALI POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 RAMU AGED 47 YEARS S/O. KALIYAPPA CHETTIYAR, KAVUNDIKKAL P.O., AGALI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 581 BY ADVS. T.K.SANDEEP VEENA HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 OTHER PRESENT: SREEJA.V- SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BAIL APPL. NO. 7724 OF 2021 2
ORDER
This petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.183 of 2021 of Agali police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Apprehending arrest this petitioner has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The facts as revealed from the FIR is as follows: On 01.07.2021 at about 11.00 p.m this petitioner along with the
other accused with the common intention to attack the defacto complainant had trespassed into his residential room where he was residing on rent along with his friends and wrongfully restrained him and inflicted injuries with deadly weapons like sword, stick etc. and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner he is
totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. In fact the learned Sessions Judge has accepted the contentions and granted bail to accused Nos.2 to 5. But unfortunately his application for pre-arrest BAIL APPL. NO. 7724 OF 2021 3 bail alone was rejected. But no serious injury has been caused to the defacto complainant by him and therefore, custodial interrogation of him is absolutely unnecessary to proceed with the investigation of the case. Hence, this application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application
contending that specific overt act is alleged against this petitioner who is the prime accused in this crime and that was the reason why his request has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge.
6. Heard both sides.
7. It is true that the defacto complainant has not sustained
serious injuries in the attack by this petitioner and the other accused. But it is pertinent to note that the petitioner along with the other accused have committed the offence after trespassing into his residential room where he was residing along with his friends. The time of the attack by this petitioner and the other accused with deadly weapons was at 11.00 p.m. Though the injuries sustained are minor in nature, the records would reveal that the defacto complainant was wrongfully restrained by the accused after committing house trespass and with the deadly weapon, a cut injury was caused on his left leg. The seriousness of the offence as well severity of the punishment also
BAIL APPL. NO. 7724 OF 2021 4 have to be considered while grating bail. As mentioned earlier, the house trespass was committed by this petitioner along with others at 11.00 p.m. No doubt at that time the defacto complainant who is aged only 21 years was taking rest in his room. That will intensify the gravity of the offences alleged against him. Considering the nature of the accusation levelled against him and the seriousness of the offences committed by him, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail, as granting of bail is the discretion of the court which has to be exercised judiciously. Hence, this petition for pre-arrest bail is dismissed. He could very well surrender before the court below or the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation of the case. Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE smm