Kerala High Court
Charles.P.S vs State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 11591 OF 2023
CRIME NO.963/2023 OF VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 3556/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS
COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 2 & 6:
1 CHARLES.P.S.
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.SEBASTIAN, PULICKAL, KOOTTUKAD, CHENNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
NEAR VALIYAPALLAM THURUTH BUST STOP, NORTH PARAVUR., PIN -
683521
2 KAITTAPPAN
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, PULICKAL, VADAKKUMPURAM, CHENNAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
NORTH PARAVUR., PIN - 683521
3 SANJU.M.R.
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O.RAJU, MULLACKAL HOUSE, PALLAMTHURUTHU, NORTH PARAVUR., PIN
- 683512
BY ADV P.K.PRIYA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN -
682031
2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
ALUVA., PIN - 683101
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR., PIN - 683522
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL.NO.11591 OF 2023
2
O R D E R
The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioners are the accused 1, 2 and 6 in Crime No.963/2023 of the Vadakkekara Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (6 in number) alleging the accused to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 364, 323, 294(b), 325, 506, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: the accused 5 and 6 due to their previous animosity with the defacto complainant on 04.12.2023 at about 9.30 p.m, contacted the defacto complainant and invited him for a settlement to redress the disputes between them. Then, the accused restrained the defacto complainant, and the first accused hit him on his head with a weapon, the second accused fisted him on his back, the accused 3 & 4 wrongfully confined him and fisted him on several parts of the body. Although the friends of the defacto complainant attempted to save him, the accused manhandled them also. Thereafter, the first and second accused abducted the BAIL APPL.NO.11591 OF 2023 3 defacto complainant from the scene of occurrence and the first accused forcefully pressed his mouth and nose and the second accused again beat him on the face. They also hurled abuses against him and the defacto complainant sustained a fracture on his nasal bone. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
4. Heard; Smt.Priya P, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. In fact, it was the defacto complainant who assaulted the son of the fifth accused and he also sustained an injury. However, the Police did not register a crime against the 5th accused. As a counter-case to the above incident, the present case has been registered. The petitioners are willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and they are willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, the application may be allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the application. She made available the case diary. She also BAIL APPL.NO.11591 OF 2023 4 submitted that the accused 1, 2, 3 and 5 are persons with criminal antecedents. The wound certificate clearly reveals that the defacto complainant sustained a nasal fracture and was under treatment at the hospital. If the petitioners are let off on bail, it would tamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials placed on record and after adverting to the wound certificate, it is quite evident that the defacto complainant sustained a nasal bone fracture. Moreover, it is seen that the accused 1, 2, 3 and 5 have criminal antecedents. Taking into account the accusations levelled against the petitioners, I am of the definite view that the petitioners' custodial interrogation is necessary. In the above background, I hold that this is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
Resultantly, the application is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS JUDGE shg