Jibin vs State Of Kerala

K.Haripal, J

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 436 of 2021 of Chengannur Police Station, which was registered alleging offence punishable under

Sections 294 (b), 324, 308, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The alleged incident had happened on 18.06.2021, in front of the residence of the

defacto complainant. The allegation is that, the petitioner along with two others, in furtherance of their common intention, attacked and injured the

defacto complainant. The petitioner had allegedly used a sickle while attacking the defacto complainant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner with the aid of Annexures produced along with the petitions submitted that, in fact it was the defacto

complainant who had attacked and injured the petitioner, he had sustained injuries on the head and was also taken first to Chengannur hospital and

thereafter, he proceeded to Government Medical College hospital, Kottayam, where he was examined in the causality. Referring to Annexure-C, he

says that the petitioner was referred for CT scan examination. With the support of Annexure-D document issued by the Medical Officer of the

Primary Health Centre Kadammanitta, it is submitted that, on 26.06.2021, he had obtained treatment from the Primary Health Centre, Kadammanitta.

From Annexure-D it is also evident that he had suffered multiple injuries, injuries on the head etc. Referring to Annexure-A, FIR, the learned counsel

pointed out that, had the defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries, the First Information Statement would not have been recorded on 19.06.2021

from his residence, by the Sub Inspector, that he required inpatient treatment only for one day.

I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the defacto complainant was attacked and injured by

the petitioner and others, he had injuries 5x1x1 cm incised wound on the forearm muscle, lacerated wounds 6x1x1 cm on the left wrist and 3x1x1 cm

on the occipital region. The petitioner used a sickle whereas the 2nd accused used a sword stick for attacking and injuring the defacto complainant.

In this setting, I am not convinced that this is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The specific allegation against the petitioner and others is that

they had used dangerous weapons in attacking and injuring the defato complainant. The injuries sustained by him are not minor in nature. In the nature

of the allegations, the weapons of offence allegedly used by the petitioner and others have to be recovered for the smooth conduct of investigation of

the case. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get an order under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Bail Application is dismissed as above.