High CourtsSingle Bench

Sajan vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 29 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 KL CK 0419

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shircy V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b), 304, 323, 324, 341, 354, 447
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No.1467 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

23 paragraphs · 436 words

Shircy V, J

1.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.1295 of 2020 of Anchuthengu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 447, 354 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

2.

The prosecution allegation is that on 15.12.2020 at about 08.00 pm the petitioner has trespassed into the residential house of the defacto complainant

and assaulted her husband. When the defacto complainant and her daughter intervened, the petitioner had used criminal force against them with the

intention to outrage their modesty. He had also caused injuries to the defacto complainant by stabbing her with a knife and thereby he committed the

aforesaid offences.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is a neighbour of the defacto complainant. The husband of the defacto

complainant used to create nuisance in the residence after consuming alcohol. On that particular day also her husband had created some kind of

nuisance in their house and when he has gone to her house, a scuffle occurred and thus the defacto complainant had sustained some minor injuries. In

fact, he had no intention to cause any injury to her and he has not having any weapon as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel also

submitted that he is totally innocent of the allegation levelled against him but he apprehends unnecessary arrest and hence this application.

5.

Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the injury caused to the defacto complainant is with a sharp edged weapon and the

same has to be recovered after interrogation of the petitioner. Hence, this application is opposed by him.

6.

Of course, the injury sustained by the defacto complainant is not of serious in nature still the wound sustained by her is a lacerated

wound.

Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant as well the other facts and circumstances involved in this case, I think

that this application can be disposed of directing the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating officer on 02.07.2021 between 10.00 am and 11.00

am. Upon such surrender, after interrogation and recording his arrest and recovery of the weapon used if any, he shall be produced before the

jurisdictional Magistrate on the very same day. If a bail application is moved by him the jurisdictional Magistrate shall consider the same without any

delay and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.