High CourtsSingle Bench

Vishnu K. vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 KL CK 0357

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 294(b), 308, 448
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 8175 Of 2020
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

18 paragraphs · 384 words
1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

2.

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.174/2020 of Mannanthala Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable

under Sections 294(b), 448 and 308 of the I.P.C.

3.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.02.2020 at about 9.00 PM, the applicant trespassed into the compound of house No.23/431 situated at

Elappalam in Vattapara Village and attempted to abuse the de facto complainant and others and caused hurt with dangerous weapons like sword, and

thus, attempted to commit culpable homicide. The crime was registered and apprehending arrest, the applicant is before this Court for anticipatory bail.

4.

The applicant states that it was the de facto complainant and his friend, who had actually trespassed into his house on 13.02.2020 at about 9.15 PM

and outraged the modesty of his wife and also caused hurt to him. No complaint was registered in consequence to that incident. The applicant had

approached the Magistrate court in consequence of which the complaint was forwarded to the police and the crime was registered at a later stage.

The applicant prays that may be granted bail and he is actually a victim and not an assailant.

5.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the sword has to be recovered and moreover the applicant is a person involved in two other crimes

registered and the cut injuries were caused to the palm of the de-facto complaint as a result of being attacked with a sword, and if the de facto

complainant had sustained the blow on his vital organs, it could have proved fatal. Hence, the applicant may not be granted anticipatory bail.

7.

After having heard the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to

the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested,

after interrogation and recovery, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be

considered and disposed of preferably on the same day.