Dismissed

Askar Ali v. Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC11 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4672/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that the gross nature of the offence, involving a blunt weapon capable of causing death, and the need for custodial interrogation regarding forensic recovery barred the grant of pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed. Applicant directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks.

Askar Ali Vs Public Prosecutor — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.4672 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.662/2020 OF Mannarkkad Police Station , Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ASKAR ALI K., AGED 31 YEARSS/O YOUSUF, KUTHANIYIL HOUSE, PAYYANADAM, PALLIKUNNU P.O., MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678583.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.A.No.4672 of 2020

¶16

-2-

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 11th day of August 2020

¶19

Application for anticipatory bail filed under Section

¶20

438 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime

¶22

No.662/2020 of Mannarkkad Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 and 324 of I.P.C. Subsequently, offence punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C. was added.

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

¶24

18.07.2020 at about 9.00 PM, the applicant allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant with a blunt iron weapon,

¶25

causing an injury on the forehead of the defacto complainant, which required suturing with three stitches.

¶26

The allegation is that the defacto complainant is a Ward

¶27

Member of Kumaranputhur Panchayat. He had informed the

¶28

forest officials about the involvement of the accused in

¶29

forest crimes, in consequence of which, the forest

¶30

officials registered two forest crimes against the

¶31

applicant. Irked with that, the applicant attacked the

¶32

defacto complainant, to wreak vengeance, is the allegation.

¶33

B.A.No.4672 of 2020

¶34

-3-

¶35

The applicant would contend that the defacto

¶36

complainant owing to political rivalry, implicated him in a false case like this. The contention of the applicant is that if he really had the intention to cause hurt, he would have carried a conventional weapon and not just a piece of iron or a nondescript one. The fact that he had a blunt iron block with him indicates that he did not have any intention to cause hurt to the defacto complainant as alleged. He has no other criminal antecedents apart from forest offences, and those cases were not on complaints made by the defacto complainant as suspected. Therefore, the intention attributed to the applicant for assaulting the defacto complainant is also not real. The applicant is willing to co-operate with the investigation, and hence, he seeks a pre-arrest bail.

¶37

I heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶38

Because the defacto complainant, a Ward Member of the Panchayat, was attacked by the applicant for the reason of his having made a complaint against the applicant, indicates the propensity of the applicant to get involved

¶39

B.A.No.4672 of 2020

¶40

-4-

¶41

in criminal offences. The fact the accused had attacked the

¶42

defacto complainant with a blunt weapon, which would even have caused his death is something to be pondered. Prima facie , the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the complicity of the applicant in attempting to commit an attempted culpable homicide. Recovery of the weapon, requires subjecting the applicant to custodial

¶43

interrogation. Therefore, he is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of a pre-arrest bail in this case.

¶44

In the result, this application for anticipatory bail

¶45

is to be dismissed. The applicant shall surrender before

¶46

the investigating officer within two weeks. After his arrest, interrogation and recovery, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for a regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of by the Magistrate preferably on the very same day.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

Askar Ali v. Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Askar Ali v. Public Prosecutor

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

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Anil Jacob, Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Salim K.C. Vs State of Kerala

Anubha Sinha Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala

Joseph P Kuriakose Alias Achankunju Vs State of Kerala