High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

ABDULSALIM, vs STATE OF KERALA

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 26 October 2017 · Citation: (2017) 10 KL CK 0017

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.M.Babu
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-438>Section 438</a> - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest · <a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-34>Section 34</a>, <a href=1767-447>Section 4
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
7199 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

38 paragraphs · 357 words
1.

Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in crime no.2846/2017 of

Chavara police station. They have allegedly committed

offences punishable under Secs 308, 323, 326, 341 and 447 of

IPC read with IPC 34. Apprehending their arrest, they seek bail

under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C .

2.

The prosecution case goes as follows: The accused

persons had grudge against the first informant. Therefore at

about 10.00 a.m on 3.8.2017 the accused persons got into a

private bus in which the first informant was a passenger. The

first accused abused the first informant with filthy words and

beat on the head of the first informant with lever of a jack. The

second accused fisted on the back of the first informant with a

spanner. Accused 3 and 4 fisted on the right cheek and left ear

of the first informant. The victim sustained a fracture on the

nasal bone.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned public prosecutor.

4.

I am shown the case diary by the learned public

prosecutor. I perused the papers in it. I saw in those papers

materials against the petitioners. The wound certificate

suggests fracture of the nasal bone of the first informant.

Serious injuries have been caused to him in the incident. The

investigation is in progress. The petitioners seem to be hiding

somewhere. Their possibility of absconding if enlarged on bail

cannot be ruled out. The possibility of them fleeing from

justice cannot be ignored. For these reasons I do not consider

this to be a fit case to invoke the provisions of Sec.438 of

Cr.P.C

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners wish to surrender before the investigating

officer. The petitioners have all the freedom to do so. In the

event of such surrender the investigating officer after

interrogation shall produce the petitioners before the court

concerned within the time allowed by the Cr.P.C . On such

production the court concerned will act according to law. It is

made clear that the investigating officer is under no obligation

to keep on waiting for the surrender of the petitioners.

7.

The application is dismissed.