High CourtsSingle Bench

Jyothilal vs Vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 24 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 KL CK 0376

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shircy V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b), 308, 324, 341, 447, 506
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 4567 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

34 paragraphs · 692 words

Shircy V, J

1.Application for pre arrest bail is filed by the sole accused in Crime No.394 of 2021 of Paravoor Police Station registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 447, 341, 294(b), 324, 308, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

The prosecution allegation is that on 25.5.2021 at about 12.40 p.m this petitioner has trespassed into the courtyard of the defacto complainant and

beaten her with an iron rod. He had beaten on her head and caused grievous hurt. When she tried to escape from his clutches by running towards the

public road, he chased her and attacked her and thereby she sustained the grievous injuries. Thereby the petitioner has committed the aforesaid

offences.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor as well the learned counsel for the defacto complainant.

4.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner is running a poultry cage in their residential compound. The defacto

complainant a relative of this petitioner who is

having family dispute with the petitioner's mother was in the habit of abusing his mother in filthy language. She had also filed complaints against his

mother before the Panchayath so as to stop the poultry cage running in the residential compound of this petitioner. But she could not succeed in her

attempt though the officials of the Health Department inspected the premises and found that the petitioner's firm is running in a hygienic condition. So

she was entertaining grudge and enemity towards the mother of the petitioner. On 25.5.2021 in fact she trespassed into the residential compound of

the petitioner and attacked his mother aged 55 years. Immediately she was rushed to the hospital and a complaint was lodged. But no case was

registered against the defacto complainant and others. So in fact this petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. But he

apprehends unnecessary arrest and torture by the police under the influence of the defacto complainant. Hence, this petition.

5.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the defacto complainant had produced the wound certificate issued to her on 25.5.2021. This wound

certificate would show that she was assaulted by a known person with an iron rod at about 1.00 p.m. She was examined by the medical team

immediately after the incident. The injuries are one lacerated wound on scalp having 7x5x2 cm and the other one is of 5x3x1 cm. As the injuries are

grave and serious in nature, the doctors who treated her had advised CT scan as well X-ray so as to verify the complications if any caused due to the

impact of the injuries suffered by her.

6.

A perusal of the wound certificate and the other records available would show that the defacto complainant a lady aged 52 years had sustained

serious injuries as she was attacked by this petitioner aged only 33 years, that too after chasing her.

7.

Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by her the gravity of the offences alleged against this petitioner appears to be serious. Though they

are relatives and neighbours, I am not inclined to allow this petition. If he is granted pre-arrest bail there is every possibility to tamper the evidence.

The possibility to abscond also cannot be ruled out. As it is evident from the wound certificate and the other records, the injuries caused by this

petitioner was with an iron rod a deadly weapon. The same also has to be recovered by the Investigating Agency on interrogation. So the submission

of the learned Public Prosecutor that custodial interrogation is required cannot be rejected at this stage. Moreover it is to be noted that no crime is

registered against the defacto complainant on the complaint of the mother of this petitioner.

8.

Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am not inclined to consider the request made by the learned counsel for

the petitioner and to grant pre arrest bail as requested by him.

Hence, the bail application is dismissed. The petitioner could very well surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the

investigation.