SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Praveendas vs State Of Kerala on 19 November, 2019

CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.7514 OF 2019

CRIME NO.1788/2019 OF Kadakkal Police Station , Kollam

PETITIONERS:

PRAVEENDAS
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. MOHANAN, , MS BHAVAN, EDATHARA, KADAKKAL,
KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM.

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

RESPONDENTS:

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

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL-690001.

3 ADDL.R3 DINYA P.K.
DIVYA BHAVAN, PUTHUKONAM, KADAKKAL,
KOLLAM-690001.

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5.11.2019 IN CRL.MA
2/2019 IN B.A.NO.7514/2019.

R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.7514 OF 2019

2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J

BA No. 7514/2019

Dated this the 19th day of November 2019

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the

instant crime No.1788/2019 of Kadakkal Police Station which has been

registered for offences punishable under Sectionsections 498A and Section326 of the IPC.

The above said crime has been registered on the basis of FIS given by the lady

defacto complainant on 09/10/2019, at about 1.15 pm in respect of the

alleged incidents which happened on 06/10/2019 at about 12.30 pm in the

afternoon. The lady defacto complainant in this case is the wife of the 1 st

petitioner herein. The short of the prosecution case is that the marriage of the

petitioner accused now aged 40 years and the lady defacto complainant, now

aged 32 years was solemnized about 13 years back and the marriage was a

culmination of an intense love affair between them and that the petitioner

belongs to a backward class and that the lady belongs to a forward community

and that petitioner used to frequently treat her with cruelty and harassment

and that on 06/10/2019, at about 12.30 pm, the petitioner had quarreled with

her and had beaten her on her left hand using a firewood piece ( വവറകകക കഷകഷ)

and that she was immediately hospitalized on the same day and x-ray revealed

that she has suffered fracture on account of the said beating received by her.

Hence it is alleged by the prosecution that petitioner has
Bail Appl..No.7514 OF 2019

3

thereby committed the above said offences.

2. R. Pushpangathan Pillai, learned advocate appearing for the lady

defacto complainant had opposed the plea for anticipatory bail. This Court

has directed the petitioner to implead the lady defacto complainant as an

additional party in order to ascertain whether any mediatory efforts would be

feasible. Sri. Pushpangathan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the lady

defacto complainant would submit on the basis of instructions from the party

that the lady has suffered much and she is not interested for any mediation

process.

3. Learned prosecutor would point out that immediately after the

incident on 06/10/2019, at about 12.30 in the afternoon, the lady was

admitted to the nearby hospital on the same day at about 2.10 pm and the

medical records would disclose that she has suffered fracture on her left hand

on account of the above said beating received by her. Learned prosecutor

would point out that as the offence alleged in this case also involves a serious

non-bailable offence as per Sectionsection 326 of the IPC, this Court may not grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the above said

allegations are false and baseless and further that the petitioner is seriously

interested in reconciliation, and the marital discord is on account of faults on

either sides and petitioner is willing to rectify his mistakes and further that,

even going by the admitted allegations of prosecution case, an offence as per
Bail Appl..No.7514 OF 2019

4

Sectionsection 326 of the IPC is not made out and at best, only an offence as per

Sectionsection 325 is made out. Section 320 of the IPC deals with grievous hurt and

clause 7(3) stipulates that, where a fracture is suffered by the victim, then it

would come within the ambit of grievous hurt.

4. Section 325 of the IPC deals with punishment for voluntarily

causing grievous hurt and the same reads as follows:

“325. Punishment for Voluntarily causing grievous
hurt- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335,
voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

5. Section 326 of the IPC deals with voluntarily causing grievous

hurt by dangerous weapons or means and that the same reads as follows:

“326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous
weapons or means-Whoever, except in the case provided for by
section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any
instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument
which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by
means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison
or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive
substance, or by means of any substance which is deleterious to
the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood,
or by means of any animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment
for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

6. A reading of Section 326 of the IPC would make it clear that one

of the necessary ingredients thereof is that it comes into play except in cases
Bail Appl..No.7514 OF 2019

5

provided by Sectionsection 335 and further that accused should have voluntarily

caused grievous hurt by means of any instruments for shooting, stamping or

cutting or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to

cause death or by means of fire or any heated substance etc. Therefore, one of

the vital ingredients is that the fracture should have been inflicted by a

weapon of offence which is likely to cause death. The Division Bench of the

Karnataka High Court in the case in State of Karnataka Vs. Parashram

Kallappa Ghevade and Others 2007 Crl. L.J.479 dealt with a case,

where the allegation was that the victim was assaulted by the accused using a

bamboo stick and further that the x-ray has revealed that the victim has

suffered fracture and the prosecution alleged that the accused has thereby

committed the offence as per Sectionsection 326 of the IPC. The Karnataka High

Court held in the above said case that in the absence of various factors like

size, thickness and sharpness of the weapon used for the assault, it cannot be

said that a bamboo stick used for beating the accused would come within the

category of dangerous weapon which is likely to cause death. In the instant

case, the admitted allegation of prosecution is that the accused had beaten on

the left hand of the lady victim using a firewood piece ( വവറകകക കഷകഷ). Only

for the limited purpose of consideration of anticipatory bail plea, this Court is

inclined to take the view that going by the dictum laid down by the Division

Bench of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka Vs.

Parashuram Kallappa Ghevade case (supra) 2007 Crl. Law
Bail Appl..No.7514 OF 2019

6

Journal 479, that in the absence of various factors like size, thickness and

sharpness of the weapon allegedly used in the assault, a firewood piece

(വവറകകക കഷകഷ) cannot be treated as a dangerous weapon which is likely to

cause death as envisaged in Sectionsection 326 of the IPC. Section 326 of the IPC is

a species of a larger genus of the offence contemplated in Sectionsection 325 of the

IPC which is dealing with punishment for grievous hurt. If the assault made

by the accused on the victim results in fracture, then definitely it would come

within the ambit of grievous hurt as per Sectionsection 320 of the IPC which is

punishable as per Sectionsection 325 thereof. But to come within the ambit of Sectionsection

326 of the IPC, it should satisfy the other ingredients in Sectionsection 326 and more

particularly in the context of facts of this case, the prosecution should have a

definite case that the alleged weapon used for the assault by the accused is a

dangerous weapon which is likely to cause death as envisaged in Sectionsection 326

of the IPC. Therefore only for the limited purpose of anticipatory bail plea

consideration, this Court is inclined to take the view that there is strong force

in the above said contention raised by Sri. M.R. Sasith Panicker, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner accused that at best only offence as per

Sectionsection 325 of the IPC may be made out in this case and not the serious non-

bailable offence as per Sectionsection 326 of the IPC. The offence as per Sectionsection 325

of the IPC is a bailable offence.

7. There is yet another crucial aspect which weighs in the mind of

this Court. The rival parties herein had an intense love affair for a very long
Bail Appl..No.7514 OF 2019

7

time and it is an inter-caste marriage and they have been married for the last

13 years. According to the counsel for the lady defacto complainant, their

marriage has faced rough seas, mainly on account of the conduct of the

petitioner accused. The above said allegation is stoutly denied by counsel for

the petitioner accused and he would say that both sides are at fault and that

petitioner is fully ready to rectify his mistakes and is prepared to travel the

extra mile to ensure that the marriage is salvaged so that the love lost

between the couple is restored for atleast the vital interest of children are safe

guarded. Those are all matters to be harmonized by the rival parties

concerned. However this Court would take the view that if the petitioner

accused is remanded in a case like this, then it might lead to a situation of

permanently closing the doors for reconciliation and it might turn out to be

the “last straw on the camel’s back” in respect of their marriage which is

already facing very rough seas. Therefore in order to ensure that the future

doors for reconciliation of the marriage which has seen rough seas is not

closed on a permanent basis, this Court would take the view that the remand

of the petitioner accused could be avoided.

8. The upshot of the above discretion is that for the limited purpose

of consideration of this anticipatory bail plea, this Court is inclined to take the

view that petitioner has made out a strong probable case that his custodial

interrogation may not really be warranted or necessary for effectuating the

fair and smooth conduct of investigation in this crime. However prosecutor
Bail Appl..No.7514 OF 2019

8

would point out that even now, petitioner has not co-operated with the IO in

the interrogation process. The petitioner will have to immediately co-

operate with the IO in the interrogation process. Learned prosecutor would

also caution this Court that there is strong possibility of the petitioner again

repeating such offences or that he may intimidate and influence the

witnesses, more particularly, the lady defacto complainant.

8. Taking note of the above said serious apprehension raised by the

prosecution, it is ordered as a safeguard that petitioner shall not enter into

or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the police station where

the lady defacto complainant is residing until the completion of

investigation process in this case subject to certain exception which will be

dealt with hereinafter.

9. Counsel for the petitioner would also point out that he would pay a

monthly amount to the bank account of the lady defacto complainant in order

to ensure that the minimal expenses of his wife and children are taken care of.

The above said undertaking made by the petitioner accused is also recorded.

10. However it is made clear that the above said observations and

findings rendered by this Court are only from the limi ted perspective as to the

issues arising in this bail application and all such issues that may be raised in

other appropriate proceedings in relation to this case, is to be decided

independently and, untrammeled and uninfluenced by any of the

observations and orders made by this Court herein above.
Bail Appl..No.7514 OF 2019

9

11. Accordingly the following directions and orders are passed.

a. Petitioner shall immediately personally appear
before the IO in relation with the above said for interrogation
purposes without any further delay at any rate by 9 am on or
before 5/12/2019 or within such extended time limit that may be
fixed by the IO as he deems fit and proper.

b. Petitioner shall fully co-operate with the
interrogation process.
c. After the interrogation process is over, in case the
investigating officer arrests the petitioner in relation to the
above said crime, then he shall be released on bail on his
executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on his furnishing two

solvent sureties to the like sum both to the satisfaction of the
investigating officer concerned.

12. However the grant of bail will be subject to the following

conditions.

(a) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of
similar nature.

(b) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(c) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer
as and when required in that connection.

(d) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper
or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

(e) The petitioner shall not visit or go anywhere near the
residence or workplace of the lady de facto complainant until the
conclusion of the trial in the impugned criminal proceedings.

(f) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within
the territorial limits of the Police Station within whose limits the lady de
Bail Appl..No.7514 OF 2019

10

facto complainant is residing, until the conclusion of the trial process,
except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating
Officer in this case or in any other crimes and for attending to the court
in connection with this case or any other cases or for contacting his
advocate/lawyer, etc. However, if there is any emergent and genuine
reasons for the petitioner to go to that area, then he may do so only with
the prior permission of the Investigating Officer concerned.

(g) Further it is also ordered that either the
petitioner/accused or the lady defacto complainant will be at liberty
to make a plea before the learned Magistrate who is dealing with the
instant case to refer the parties to the nearest local mediation center
or the District Mediation centre upon which the learned Magistrate
will refer the parties to such nearby mediation centre. If the mediation
process is successful, then the petitioner will be at liberty to work out
further modalities in that regard and at that time, petitioner will also
be at liberty to seek appropriate modifications in the bail conditions in
regard to the restriction regarding his place of residence.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application

will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS

Nsd JUDGE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation