High CourtsSingle Bench

Reju vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 21 March 2024 · Citation: (2024) 03 KL CK 0191

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.G.Ajithkumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 57, 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 294(b), 308, 323, 324, 354, 452
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No.2021 Of 2024
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

8 paragraphs · 359 words

P.G.Ajithkumar, J

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.24 of 2024 of Yerroor Police Station. The offence alleged is under Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 324, 354 and 308 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that, at 6.10 PM on 07.01.2024, accused nos.1 and 3, in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant. The petitioner/2nd accused tried to catch hold of the daughter of the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant and her son intervened, petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with a sword and pushed her down. The petitioner inflicted injury on the left leg of defacto complainant’s son with the sword.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, accused nos.1 and 3, who were arrested by the investigating agency, have already been released on bail. Therefore, there is no purpose in detaining the petitioner.

6.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application, contending that, it was the petitioner who had taken the lead role in committing the crime. It was the petitioner who used the weapon to inflict injury to the defacto complainant and to assault his daughter, so as to outrage her modesty. In such circumstances, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner will hamper the investigation. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor seeks the dismissal of the application.

8.

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is disposed of directing the applicant to surrender before the investigating officer within a period of one week from today. In the event of his surrendering before the investigating officer, he shall, after interrogation and necessary other formalities of investigation, be produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction within the time specified in Section 57 of the Code. If any bail application is filed  by  the  petitioner,  on  such  production,  the  learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same, as far as possible, on the same day.