High CourtsSingle Bench

Chithrabhanu vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 KL CK 0022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 160, 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 342, 353
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 2426 Of 2021
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

26 paragraphs · 487 words

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

1.

The above captioned application seeking anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( “‘Code†for

short) by the accused in Crime No.113 of 2021 of the Thalayolaparambu Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 353

read with Section 34 of the IPC .

2.

The 2nd accused is the daughter of the 1st petitioner. She was the victim in Crime No.1240 of 2018. With a view to serve notice under Section 160

of the Cr.P.C., the defacto complainant, a lady police officer, had gone to the residential house of the petitioner herein on 15.02.2021. The allegation is

that the petitioner herein wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and deterred her from discharging her official duty.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is without merit. The learned counsel

would refer to Annexure-3 notice purported to be issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and it is contended that the notice is dated 16.02.2021. According

to the learned counsel, Annexure-3 would destroy the very edifice of the prosecution version. She would also contend that the 2nd accused has

already been enlarged on bail.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor has very strenuously opposed the prayer. It is also submitted that the petitioner herein is a retired Sub Inspector of

Police and by his acts much inconvenience was caused to the informant.

5.

I have considered the submissions and have carefully evaluated the records. The petitioner is not reported to be persons with criminal antecedents.

Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary for an effective

investigation in the instant case.

6.

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall

undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

i) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or

till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat

or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and

pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.