Dismissed

Prasad Kumar v. the S.I.of Police Koodal & Another

Kerala HC21 Jun 2010Bail Appl./1866/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered a bail application regarding alleged offences including assault and causing damage at a temple. Although the absence of external injuries cast doubt on the severity of Section 308 IPC, the Court found the petition unsuitable for anticipatory bail and directed the petitioner to surrender.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender to Investigating Officer within seven days; Section 308 IPC treated as not involved if arrested.

Prasad Kumar Vs the S.I.of Police Koodal & Another — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1866 of 2010() ----------------------------CRIME NO.114/2010 OF KOODAL POLICE STATION

¶4

(S): PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED -----------------------------------------PRASAD KUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN ACHARI, PRASAD BHAVAN, PARAYANKODE P.O., KALANJOOR VILLAGE & ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH

¶6

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE

¶7

¶8

THE S.I. OF POLICE, KOODAL POLICE STATION.

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ERNAKULAM.

¶10

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ.

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

K.HEMA, J.

¶13

Bail Application No.1866 of 2010

¶14

Dated 21^st June, 2010.

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶17

The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b),

¶18

447, 323, 324, 308 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 17.3.2010, at about 10.30 p.m., petitioner (A4) along with other accused attacked defacto complainant and others with a tube light and thereby inflicted injuries on him. He also caused damage to the stage erected by the temple committee and caused a loss of Rs.1,000/-.

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was some quarrel between two groups in a temple, but offence under Section 308 Indian Penal Code is not involved. No injury is sustained by defacto complainant and the said section is included only for the purpose of causing harm to accused, it is submitted.

¶20

This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners had trespassed into the temple premises and assaulted defacto complainant and temple committee members and also caused damage to the stage.

¶21

On hearing both sides and on going through the

¶22

BA NO.1866/10

¶23

¶24

wound certificate, I find that the wound certificate only reveals tenderness suffered by the injured. Though tube light is allegedly used for the offence, there are no external injuries. In the above circumstances, I find force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner regarding involvement of Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. However, considering various aspects and the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

¶25

In the result, the following order is passed :

¶26

(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and cooperate with the investigation.

¶27

(ii) On such surrender, in case petitioner is arrested, offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code will be treated as not involved.

¶28

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶29

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

¶30

tgs

Prasad Kumar v. the S.I.of Police Koodal & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad Kumar v. the S.I.of Police Koodal & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan and Another Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Veeyapuram

T.G.Santhosh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Vinod Kumar Vs State

R.J.Shankar and Another Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Another

Abdurahiman Vs State of Kerala