Kerala High Court
Baiju vs State Of Kerala on 2 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 4646 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1883/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,
VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 BAIJU
AGED 10 YEARS
S/O.ASHOKAN, THAZHISSERY HOUSE, MINALUR P.O., MINALUR DESOM AND
VILLAGE, WADAKKANCHERRY, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 BIJU,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.ASHOKAN, THAZHISSERY HOUSE, MINALUR P.O., MINALUR DESOM AND
VILLAGE, WADAKKANCHERRY, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP - SRI. RENJITH T.R.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.4646 of 2021
2
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 97 of 2021 of
Wadakkancherry police station registered on 19.02.2021 alleging
offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34
of the IPC.
2. The crime was registered on the information given by
Ashokan, the father of the petitioners alleging that he was assaulted
and injured using wooden reaper by the petitioners. At that stage
they had surrendered before the Court and were granted bail, since
only bailable offences were alleged against them. During course of
investigation it was revealed that the informant had suffered grievous
hurt, communited fracture left tibia proximal 1/3rd, fracture left fibula
proximal 1/3rd, fracture right fibula proximal 1/3rd and fracture right
ulna distal 1/3rd. In other words, the petitioners had caused grievous
hurts to both his legs and right hand using reaper, caused grievous
hurts to both his upper and lower limbs. Later, since offence under
Section 326 of the IPC was revealed police wanted to arrest them for
the purpose of recovering the material object. After hearing counsel
on both sides by Annexure-B order dated 26.07.2021 the Court
granted permission to the police to arrest the petitioners as part of
Crl.M.C.No.4646 of 2021
investigation of the crime. While granting the permission the Court
also relied on the decisions reported in Pradeep Ram v. State of
Jharkhand 2019 (4) KHC (SN) 10, and Ajeesh and others v. State
of Kerala, 2021 (2) KHC 235.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. It has come out that the petitioners are none other than the sons
of the defacto complainant who suffered grievous hurt in the occurrence.
The learned counsel for the petitioners strongly advocated for canceling
the order under challenge. According to him, the defacto complainant is
a notorious criminal in the area, having been involved in eleven cases;
relying on Annexure-D document obtained under the Right to
Information Act, he said that he is involved in a serious POCSO case,
besides other cases, that he is a drunkard and used to man handle the
wife, the mother of the petitioners; he has leased out a lean-to attached
to of the house to a mahout, in close association with the mahout in
drunken bouts used to create scene in the locality. The learned counsel
also submitted that the 1st petitioner is a construction contractor whereas
the 2nd petitioner is employed in a private company. They do not have
any criminal antecedents to their credit.
Crl.M.C.No.4646 of 2021
5. All the same, we cannot ignore the seriousness of the crime
alleged against the petitioners. They had attacked and caused grievous
hurts to their father, causing injuries on both his legs and right hand. In
the nature of the allegations recovery of the material object is an
inevitable part of investigation which cannot hampered. Therefore the
order under challenge does not call for interference. The Criminal
Miscellaneous Case is only to be dismissed.
6. When the order was pronounced, the learned counsel submitted
that the petitioners intend to surrender before the Investigating Officer
and will co-operate with investigation. It is made clear that if the
petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with
the investigation, the matter shall be proceeded with utmost expedition;
on being arrested and when produced in Court, if they file an application
for bail before the Court with prior notice to the Assistant Public
Prosecutor, that shall be considered on the very same day.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed with the above
observation.
Sd/-
K. HARIPAL
JUDGE
RMV/02/11/2021
Crl.M.C.No.4646 of 2021
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4646/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
Annexure A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.97/2021 OF
WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION.
Annexure B TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2021 IN
CMP.NO.1883/2021 PASSED BY THE JUDL.FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY.
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION DATED 15.02.2021.
Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION TO
THE WIFE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 19.08.2021.
