Ajeesh vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17018 Ker

BAIL APPL. NO. 5822 OF 2021            1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
    THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1943
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 5822 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1123/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT &
                     SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM, KOLLAM
   (CRIME NO.346 OF 2021 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED

             AJEESH
             AGED 24 YEARS
             S.O.ANILKUMAR, KOLAYIL VEEDU, ESI JUNCTION,
             PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM-691 574.
             BY ADVS.
             SRI. K.SIJU
             SRI. ANJANA KANNATH


RESPONDENT/STATE

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
     2       STATION HOUSE OFFICER
             PARIPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691 574.

OTHER PRESENT:

             SMT. PUSHPALATHA.M.K- SR.P.P



      THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION    HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
12.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 5822 OF 2021          2




                                ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.346 of 2021 of

Parippally Police Station, Kollam District registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 323,325,354 and 308 of the Indian Penal

Code, this petition has been moved by the petitioner under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. On 6.7.2021 in the morning at about 7.00 a.m the defacto

complainant and her husband had gone to the residence of the MLA so

as to complain against the petitioner for causing some sort of mischief

to them. Then the MLA has directed them to lodge a complaint against

the petitioner before the police. So while they were returning in their

scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-22/G 3861 the petitioner had intentionally

hit them on the back side of the scooter with his lorry and as a result

they fell down on the road. Then the petitioner came out of his lorry

and beaten her husband causing injuries including fracture. When the

defacto complainant attempted to rescue him, he deliberately torn off

her saree and pushed her down with the intention to outrage her

modesty and thereby the petitioner has committed the aforesaid

offences, is the case of the prosecution.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the defacto complainant and her husband have falsely implicated

this petitioner in the alleged crime due to their enemity towards him.

He has not committed any offence as alleged and he is ready to

co-operate with the investigation of the case. But the application is

vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, as the

investigation is only in the initial stage.

5. A copy of the wound certificate produced by the learned

Public Prosecutor would show that the defacto complainant has

sustained minor injuries in the attack by the petitioner. But her

husband had sustained injuries including fracture. Though the learned

counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact he was attacked

by the defacto complainant and her husband by trespassing into his

house and caused injuries to him, the copy of the wound certificate of

the defacto complainant and her husband would show that the

contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not

absolutely correct, as the place of occurrence is the public road near

the ESI Junction. She was deliberately attacked with the intention to

outrage her modesty that too in the public place is the allegation.

Annexure 2 wound certificate produced by the petitioner would show

that he was attacked by two persons at about 1.00 p.m on 6.7.2021

while he was at his house. But the time of occurrence of this case is at

9.45 a.m and the defacto complainant and her husband have clearly

narrated the cause of the injuries to the doctor and the doctor

recorded the same in their wound certificates.

Considering the entire facts involved in this case, I think that this

is not at all a fit case in which discretion of this Court can be exercised

in favour of the petitioner and grant pre-arrest bail which would be

granted only in exceptional circumstances judicially. The petitioner is

at liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate

with the investigation of the case.

The bail application is dismissed.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V

JUDGE

smm