Dismissed

Paulose Kallarackal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Oct 2021Bail Appl./7116/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam considered a plea for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving offenses under IPC Sections 447, 324, and 326. Despite the petitioner's innocence plea, the court dismissed the application due to the accused's serious criminal antecedents and the likelihood of interfering with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner not granted bail.

Paulose Kallarackal Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 7116 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1199 OF 2021 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ERNKAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1737/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

PAULOSE KALLARACKAL AGED 55 YEARS S/O. THE LATE PHILIP, KALLARACKAL HOUSE, ELAVOOR P.O., PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, PIN-683 572.

¶10

BY ADV C.S.MANU

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 031.

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 572.

¶14

SREEJA.V- SR.PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO. 7116 OF 2021

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.1199/2021 of Angamaly Police Station, Ernakulam District registered for the offences punishable under Section 447, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that due to the previous enmity of the petitioner towards the defacto complainant, on 13.08.2021 at 9.30 p.m., trespassed into his residential compound with the intention to cause injuries had brutally attacked him and beaten with a wooden stick on his face and caused grievous injuries including fracture and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a plea of false implication and would submit that he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. In fact there was a scuffle between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and he sustained injuries accidentally in a fall. But this petitioner is not responsible for any of the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant. Still he apprehends arrest and hence this application.

¶22

BAIL APPL. NO. 7116 OF 2021

¶23

¶24

But the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

¶25

opposed the application and produced the wound certificate along with the copy of the F.I.R.

¶26

Heard both sides.

¶27

A perusal of the wound certificate produced by the learned Public Prosecutor would show that the defacto complainant, who sustained serious injuries in the attack by the petitioner was immediately taken to the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Aluva and from there he was referred to a higher centre i.e. Apollo Adlux Hospital, Karukutty. The injuries noted in the wound certificate are as follows:

¶28

1. Lacerated injury over front region towards (L) Swelling of the face

¶29

(2) ii) Lacerated injury (1x1) over chin

¶30

CT (Brain) x-ray- chest .

¶31

1. Comminuted #on the wall L) of maxillary sinus

¶32

1. Undisplaced # in ant. aspect of Inf. wall of (L) orbit

¶33

1. Soft tissue injury on (L) peri orbital region and L) side of face. (No intra cranial injury)

¶34

He was admitted in the hospital and discharged only on

¶35

BAIL APPL. NO. 7116 OF 2021

¶36

¶37

the next day. It is revealed from the wound certificate that he has sustained serious injuries including two fractures in the attack by this petitioner. The recovery of the weapon used by the petitioner to inflict injuries as well fracture, is yet to be recovered by the investigating agency and for the same the presence of the petitioner is inevitable. Moreover, the report would reveal that this petitioner is having very bad criminal antecedents as he is involved in six crimes registered before Angamaly Police Station and one crime registered before the Ernakulam Town North Police Station and another crime registered before the Ernakulam Central Police Station.

¶38

Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the seriousness of the offences alleged against the petitioner, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion of granting bail in favour of the petitioner as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, as he is having bad criminal antecedents if he is granted pre-arrest bail there is every possibility to interfere with the smooth course of investigation by intimidating the witnesses. So for an effective investigation, it is not feasible to grant pre-arrest bail to

¶39

¶40

BAIL APPL. NO. 7116 OF 2021

¶41

the petitioner as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is not an accused in Crime No. No.295/2017 registered before the Ernakulam Town North Police Station and in Crime No.54/2017 registered before the Ernakulam Central Police Station, no documents have been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his contention that somebody else is the accused. Therefore, his argument is rejected.

¶42

Hence, for the aforementioned reasons this application is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

SHIRCY V. JUDGE

¶45

mpm

Paulose Kallarackal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paulose Kallarackal 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

John Varghese. v Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Sinoj Varghese Alex Vs State of Kerala

Riju.N.K Vs State of Kerala

Binshad Vs State of Kerala

Veera Kumar, Vs State of Kerala