Hussain S vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 13910 Ker

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

                        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

             TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943

                            BAIL APPL. NO. 3897 OF 2021

      (CRIME NO.316/2021 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT)

    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 875/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS

                                COURT,KOLLAM, KOLLAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             HUSSAIN S.,
             AGED 30 YEARS,
             S/O SAHEED,
             NEDUMPALLISSERIL PADEETTATHIL,
             KADATHOOR P.O., THAZHAVA,
             KARUNGAPPALLY - 690 523.
             BY ADVS.
             OMAR SALIM
             SRAVAN M.S.
             ABDULLA ZIYAD
             ARUN T.


RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

     1       STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
             ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
     2       THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
             (CRIME NO.316 OF 2021 OF KARUNGAPPALLY POLICE STATION),
             KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 518.


             R1-2 BY SRI. SANTHOSH PETER, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.


      THIS   BAIL     APPLICATION     HAVING    COME   UP      FOR   ADMISSION   ON
06.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl.No.3897 OF 2021                 2




                                     ORDER

The 1st accused in Crime No.316/2021 of Karunagappally Police

Station is the petitioner . This application is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

He along with other members of his family are arrayed as accused. Offence

under Sections 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is alleged

against the petitioner and others.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on

07-03-2021 at 11 p.m., the defacto complainant and one Prabhath had

reached his house., and while discussing an earlier issue, the defacto

complainant and his associate attacked and injured the petitioner and other

members of his family, for which the mother of the petitioner had already

preferred a complaint before the District Police Chief. He pointed out that

the said complaint is marked as Annexure A3 in the petition. According to

the learned counsel, the defacto complainant and his friend are now in jail

for dealing with 1600 litres of arrack, which would reveal their nature.

According to the learned counsel the petitioner has not committed any such

offence.

3. The learned public Prosecutor has opposed the application

seriously. According to him the said Prabhath and the defacto complainant

had gone to the residence of the petitioner for settlement of an issue, then the

petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with a knife and serious injuries

were caused to the defacto complainant. He suffered lacerated wound of

7x3x3 cms on the scalp and another lacerated wound of 4x2x2 cms on the

forearm. The petitioner had used a knife against the defacto complainant.

The said Prabhath also had sustained injuries.

4. It is true that the place of occurrence is in the vicinity of the

house of the petitioner. Still, the allegation is that the petitioner had used a

knife and caused serious injuries on the defacto complainant and his

associate. In the circumstances, having heard to the nature of the allegations,

the weapon of offence used in the attack requires to be recovered. That will

be possible only after custodial interrogation of the petitioner. If an order is

passed under Section 438, that would hinder the free flow of investigation

which is not in the interest of justice.

The application is devoid of merits and is dismissed.

Sd/-

K. HARIPAL JUDGE

RMV/06/07