Kerala High Court
Unknown vs Present on 4 June, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 3433 of 2018
CRIME NO. 614/2018 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM
PETITIONER
SIYAD,
AGED 27 YEARS,S/O JAFFER,ROAD VILA VEEDU,PALAMKONAM,
PERUMULAM.P.O,ALAMCODE,ATTINGAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-6
95102.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.ZIYAD
SRI.T.A.PRAKASH
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KADAKKAVOOR
POLICE STATION,TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT,THROUGH GOVERNMENT
PLEADER,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-06-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
AL/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J
-------------------------------------
B.A No.3433 of 2018
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2018
ORDER
1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.The applicant herein is the 1st accused in Crime No.614 of 2018 of the Kadakkavoor Police Station, registered under Sections 451, 427, 429 , 506 (ii) r/w Section 34 of the IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
3.The son of the de facto complainant and the applicant herein was not in good terms. It is alleged that on 25.4.2018 at about 9 PM, the applicant along with two others trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and committed mischief by destroying the window panes. They were armed with swords and other cutting weapons and they are alleged to have criminally intimidated the lady by brandishing the weapons. It is alleged that the applicant then turned his ire to the pet dog of the de facto complainant, which was B.A No.3433 of 2018 2 tethered near the gate. He is alleged to have attacked the dog with swords and caused its instantaneous death.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the entire allegations levelled against him are bereft of truth. The son of the de facto complainant had attacked the applicant and though the applicant had approached the police, no crime was registered. According to the learned counsel, the son of the de facto complainant is having a criminal background and he has been falsely implicated.
5.The learned Public Prosecutor has very strenuously opposed the prayer. He has also made available the case diary.
6.The report of the Chief Disease Investigation Officer reveals that the dog was attacked with a sword and fatal injuries were inflicted on its head. The contemporaneous mahazar prepared shows the extent of mischief caused to the house of the de facto complainant.
7.There are materials in the case diary, which clearly points to the involvement of the applicant. Having considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the materials in support thereof, I am of the view that this Court will not be justified in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. This application will stand dismissed.
B.A No.3433 of 2018 3
8.The learned counsel prays that a direction be issued to enable the applicant to surrender before the jurisdictional court and seek regular bail. The applicant is directed to surrender before court without any delay and if an application for bail is filed, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on its merits.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE al/-5.6 //true copy// P.S to Judge