Basil George vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 21448 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
     FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                     BAIL APPL. NO. 7698 OF 2021
  CRIME NO.1068/2021 OF KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1972/2021 OF COURT OF SESSION,
                                 ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

    1       BASIL GEORGE
            AGED 32 YEARS
            S/O. GEORGE, PARASSERY HOUSE, CHELAD P. O.,
            KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686681.

    2       SYAM M.
            AGED 33 YEARS
            T. P. MANMADHAN, THEKKUMPARAMBU HOUSE,
            THRIKKARIYOOR P. O., KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686692.

            BY ADV AJEESH M UMMER



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

            STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM - 682 031, (REPRESENTING SHO, KOOTHATTUKULAM
            POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.)

            SMT.SREEJA.V - SR.PP


     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION    HAVING     COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 7698 OF 2021

                                 2

                              ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.1068/2021

of Koothattukulam Police Station, Ernakulam District registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 323, 353 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this application

under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The defacto complainant is working as the Inspector

holding charge of the KSRTC bus stand at Koothatukulam. On

07.09.2021 at about 11.45 a.m., the petitioners have parked their

car inside the KSRTC bus stand, then the defacto complainant had

asked them to remove the car but they got infuriated by the same,

and have assaulted him and caused obstruction in discharging his

official duties and thereby committed the aforesaid offences, is the

prosecution case.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

1st accused had parked his car as the 2 nd accused had gone out to a

nearby shop. When he reached there, they removed the car as per

the direction of the defacto complainant. But nothing has happened

as alleged by the prosecution. Still they apprehend arrest and

hence this application.

4. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the defacto BAIL APPL. NO. 7698 OF 2021

complainant was hit by the 2nd accused and he had also twisted his

hand and assaulted him while he was on his official duty and thus

obstructed him from discharging his duties.

5. The wound certificate available on record would show

that the defacto complainant had sustained injuries and he was

admitted in the hospital. He was rushed to the hospital immediately

after the incident and of course he was discharged from the hospital

on the next day, as the injuries were not that serious.

Considering the gravity of the offences alleged against these

petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case in which the

discretion of this Court can be exercised in favour of these

petitioners to grant pre-arrest bail as requested. However, they are

directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate on

05.11.2021 at 11.00 a.m. If an application for bail is moved, the

same shall be considered and disposed of on merits without any

delay, preferably on the same day.

With these observations this bail application is disposed of.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE mpm