Allowed

Afsal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2020Bail Appl./6488/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused facing charges under IPC Sections 270 and 353 and the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance, 2020, for allegedly deterring a doctor from his duty by hurling abuses during a COVID-19 testing queue.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail directed with condition to surrender within two weeks and execute a bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

Afsal Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6488 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.2290/2020 OF Anchal Police Station, Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

AFSAL AGED 24 YEARS S/O THAJUDHEEN, MUMTHAS MANZIL, THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691306.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.N.ABHILASH SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.T.A.JOY SRI.E.S.SANEEJ SRI.N.ABHILASH SRI.M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.M.K.SAMYUKTHA SMT.SREELEKHA. P SHRI.DEEPU RAJAGOPAL

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

SRI.AJITH MURALI SR PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No.6488 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Dated this the 5th day of November 2020

¶18

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶19

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶20

The applicant is the accused in Crime

¶21

No.2290/2020 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam, for

¶22

having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 270 and 353 of IPC and also under

¶23

Section 5 of the Kerala Epidemic Diseases

¶24

Ordinance, 2020.

¶25

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.07.2020 at about 2.30 p.m., knowing that the applicant was not well and possibly suffering from COVID-19, he reached the Anchal Community Health Centre, with the intention to spread the epidemic disease and thereafter, deterred the defacto complainant who is a public servant and a Doctor at the Health Centre from discharging his duty as such Public Servant. On the basis of the complaint

¶26

Bail Appl..No.6488 OF 2020

¶27

lodged by the Doctor, the crime was registered. The applicant apprehends arrest and has therefore approached this Court for pre-arrest bail.

¶28

The applicant submits that he did not do

¶29

anything to deter the public servant from discharging his duty. He was standing in the queue with his two-year-old child and that even after standing there till afternoon, no steps were taken to examine him. And therefore, he raised a complaint before the Authorities about the

¶30

indolence on the part of the officials. He did not apply any force nor did he assault anybody. Therefore, he seeks anticipatory bail.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant

¶32

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶33

Going by the statement of the defacto

¶34

complainant, who is a Doctor, engaged in the

¶35

Community Health Centre, Anchal, it is seen that

¶36

while he was collecting swabs for the purpose of

¶37

Bail Appl..No.6488 OF 2020

¶38

¶39

COVID-19 tests, the applicant was standing on the

¶40

queue, and raised a huge hue and cry, hurled abuses and deterred him from performing his duty.

¶41

Going by the definition of an offence under Section 353 IPC, it is essential that the accused must have assaulted or used force to deter a

¶42

public servant from discharging his duty. Going by the FIR and the FIS, there is no indication regarding this and therefore, prima facie , an offence under Section 353 IPC is not attracted. Hurling abuses at a public servant alone would not be sufficient to attract an offence under Section 353 IPC. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to a pre-arrest bail.

¶43

In the result the bail application is

¶44

allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender

¶45

before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation, in the event of his being

¶46

arrested, he shall be released on bail on the

¶47

Bail Appl..No.6488 OF 2020

¶48

execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty

¶49

thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the

¶50

like amount each to the satisfaction of the

¶51

investigating officer and on the following conditions;

¶52

influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶53

He shall appear before the investigating

¶54

officer as and when called for.

¶55

offences during the bail period.

¶56

In the event of violating the bail conditions,

¶57

the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Afsal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afsal v. State of Kerala

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

Sivakumar C. Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hakeem Vs State of Kerala

Mithul Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Shiji P R Vs State of Kerala

Hrishikradh@ Sagar Vs State of Kerala

Jamun Jahamgheer Vs State of Kerala