Chandran P.B vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This is an application filed u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.764/2022 of Idukki Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 326 A of the IPC.

The prosecution case in short is that, on 16.09.2022 at 11.45 pm, the petitioner with intention to cause bodily harm to the defacto complainant and his elder brother, in front of a small tea shop run by him, took a cup of boiled water from the pot on the stove and poured it on the face of the defacto complainant and then on the chest of the defacto complainant's elder brother and thus caused burns on the right eye and face of the defacto complainant and chest of the defacto complainant's elder brother and thereby committed the offences.

Heard both sides and perused the case diary.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and hence he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He contended that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioner and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would affect the course of investigation.

The law with regard to the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power u/s 438 of Cr.P.C could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation made against the petitioner is well founded. The allegations made against him are very serious in nature and it prima facie show a premeditated criminal act on his part. The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. Hence, considering the gravity of the offence and stage of investigation, I feel that it is not a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. could be invoked. The application is only to be dismissed.

In the result, the bail application is dismissed.