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
8 paragraphs · 346 wordsC.S. Sudha, J
This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner/accused in Crime no.607/2021 of Pudukkad Police Station, Thrissur District alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 294(b), 325 and 326 IPC.
The prosecution case is that the petitioner/accused due to his enmity towards the informant, on 20.10.2021 at 9.20 a.m., wrongfully restrained him, abused him by calling him obscene words and then voluntarily caused hurt and grievous hurt to him. The accused hit him with a piece of granite stone resulting in a fracture on his right wrist. The accused also pushed him down and when the informant fell down, kicked him and twisted his right ankle resulting in a fracture. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the above mentioned Sections.
The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the investigation is only at its initial stage and that the petitioner/accused has caused grievous injuries to the informant.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him. Actually, it is the informant who had assaulted and injured the petitioner/accused. In spite of the fact that he had given a complaint to the Police, no action has been taken on the basis of the same. The petitioner had also sustained injuries in the incident. It is submitted that the petitioner/accused had, only by way of self defense, resisted the attack by the informant. It is also submitted that he has no criminal antecedents.
Heard both sides. Perused the records.
On going through the copy of the wound certificate handed over by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is seen that the informant herein has sustained three fractures. In the light of the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed and the injuries sustained by the informant/injured, this Court is not inclined to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Hence, the bail application is dismissed.