High CourtsSingle Bench

Shilin vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 December 2021 · Citation: (2021) 12 KL CK 0135

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.S.Sudha, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 294(b), 308, 324, 341
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9211 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

8 paragraphs · 309 words

C.S.Sudha, J

1.

This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/2nd accused for pre-arrest bail in Crime No.1983/2021 of Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 308 r/w Section 34 IPC.

2.

The prosecution case is that the accused-two in number due to their prior enemity towards the informant, with the intention of voluntarily causing hurt to him, on 14.10.2021 at 5 p.m. wrongfully restrained him and caused injuries to him by assaulting him with a knife used for cutting electric wire. The second accused hit the informant twice with a helmet causing hurt to him and the first accused with a knife used for cutting electric wire, attacked him resulting in causing serious injuries on his body. Hence the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the above mentioned Sections.

3.

The bail application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that very serious injuries have been caused to the informant herein and that the investigation is only at its initial stage.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd accused quite strenuously canvassed for pre-arrest bail on the ground that the petitioner/2nd accused has no criminal antecedents and that he is innocent of the offences alleged against him.

5.

Heard both sides and perused the records.

6.

It may be true that the petitioner/second accused has no criminal antecedents. However, on going through the FIS it is seen that without any provocation it is the petitioner/second accused who had initiated the assault. Taking into account the injuries sustained by the informant/injured and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be invoked.

Hence, the bail application is dismissed.