Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1500 (KER)

C. H. Sali S/o Hassankutty v. State of Kerala

2025-05-28

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

body2025
ORDER : 1. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.193 of 2025 of Thrikkunnapuzha Police Station, Alappuzha. The offences alleged against the petitioner are those under sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), 296(b) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ' BNS '). 2. According to the FIR, accused 1 to 7 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons like iron rods and sword sticks, and attacked the defacto complainant with the intention to murder him, due to the enmity for not withdrawing the case against accused 1 and 5. On 23.03.2025 at around 7.10 pm, first accused after exhorting to murder the defacto complainant, hit him on his left ribs and when he fell down, the other accused stamped him on various parts of his body and the second accused hit him with a sword on the head while the first accused abused him and again hit him with the iron rod on the head and the defacto complainant sustained fracture of the ribs and nasal bone and suffered grievous injuries and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. 3. Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Adv. A Rajasimham, vehemently contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the petitioner is innocent of the crime. It was also submitted that the petitioner is a person incapable of lifting his hands due to injuries sustained by him much earlier and hence the petitioner could not have committed the acts alleged. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that they have collected CCTV footage indicating that the defacto complainant was travelling on a bike on the day with a sword in his hand, indicating that it was he who had planned the attack and not the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that considering the age of the petitioner and his incapacity to lift his hands, he ought to be released on anticipatory bail. 4. Sri. K.A. Noushad, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and hence custodial interrogation is necessary. It was also submitted that the petitioner along with the 5 th accused had instigated the crime and the petitioner had brutally assaulted the defacto complainant resulting in serious injuries including fracture of the ribs as well as fracture of the nasal bone. 5. It was also submitted that the petitioner along with the 5 th accused had instigated the crime and the petitioner had brutally assaulted the defacto complainant resulting in serious injuries including fracture of the ribs as well as fracture of the nasal bone. 5. Sri. B. Pramod the learned counsel for the defacto complainant on the other hand contended that the defacto complainant was brutally assaulted by the petitioner and the other accused and he had sustained serious injuries and was in the hospital. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner wanted the defacto complainant to withdraw the civil case filed by him and they assaulted him with the intention to murder him for dragging them to the court. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had assaulted him with an iron rod and urged others to murder him. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the documents. 7. The photographs produced by the petitioner as well as the defacto complainant cannot be relied upon at this juncture to arrive at a conclusion one way or the other. 8. Petitioner's claim that he is disabled from moving his hands due to an old injury, cannot be relied upon going by the medical report produced. Certain tears on his shoulder or a rotator cuff injury noted in the certificate cannot by itself be a reason to assume that allegations against the petitioner are without any basis. The medical reports produced do not reflect or indicate that petitioner is immobile and hence no reliance ca be placed on it. 9. A reading of the F.I.R. indicates that the petitioner was the main person who urged others to attack the defacto complainant and even used dangerous weapons in the attack. The serious injuries sustained by the defacto complainant were inflicted by the petitioner. Considering the nature of allegations and the severity of punishment, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner could be protected with an order of anticipatory bail. If the petitioner, as the first accused and the alleged brain behind the crime, is protected with an order of anticipatory bail, the investigation into the crime will be defeated. 10. While considering the question of grant of anticipatory bail, the severity of the crime and the nature of the offences alleged cannot be ignored by the court. If the petitioner, as the first accused and the alleged brain behind the crime, is protected with an order of anticipatory bail, the investigation into the crime will be defeated. 10. While considering the question of grant of anticipatory bail, the severity of the crime and the nature of the offences alleged cannot be ignored by the court. In a case involving offences like attempt to murder, anticipatory bail can be granted only if the allegations are prima facie found to be false or a person is implicated in the crime due to malafides of the police. In situations of brutal assault and inflicting serious injuries, granting anticipatory bail to the accused will hamper the investigation. The provision for grant of pre-arrest bail should be resorted to in such cases with care and caution. 11. Further, in a recent decision in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598 , the Supreme Court had observed that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order of pre-arrest bail. It was also observed that success in interrogation will elude, if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a prior bail order during the time he is interrogated. Similarly, in State Rep. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma , (1997) 7 SCC 187 , it was observed by the Supreme Court that a blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual.. 12. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. 13. Accordingly, I dismiss this application.