IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.7826 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1444/2019 DATED 17-09-2019 OF
DISTRICT COURT SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE

CRIME NO.340/2019 OF Panniankara Police Station , Kozhikode

PETITIONER:

SUNILKUMAR P.V.,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, RESIDING AT KRISHNASREE, KALLAI
POST, KOZHIKODE-673003.

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM. (INSTRUCTIONS THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE
OFFICER, PANNIYAKMARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT).

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.7826 OF 2019

2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J

BA No. 7826/2019

Dated this the 20th day of November 2019

O R D E R

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused NO. 1 among the 3

accused in the instant crime No. 340/2019 of Panniyankara Police Station

which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 326, Section406

and Section498A of the IPC. The said crime has been registered on the basis of FIS

given by the lady defacto complainant on 24/07/2019 at about 7.50 pm in

respect of the alleged incidents which happened for the period from

25/02/2019 to 21/03/2019. The lady defacto complainant in this case is

the wife of the 1st petitioner herein (A1). A2 and A3 are the father and

mother of the 1st petitioner herein (A1).

2. The prosecution case in short is that after the marriage of the

above said spouses, the petitioners have been treating the lady with cruelty

and harassment and that they have demanded her to bring in more gold

ornaments and further that they have misappropriated 60 sovereigns of

gold ornaments given to her by her parents at the time of marriage and

further that on 21/03/2019, the petitioner/A1 had assaulted her using a

mop stick which has resulted in dislocation of her left thump and thereby

the accused persons have committed the above said offences. Accused Nos.
Bail Appl..No.7826 OF 2019

3

2 and 3 have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court,

Kozhikode a per Annexure B order dated 17/10/2019 in criminal M C

No.1444/2019.

3. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the above

said allegations are false and baseless and further that it has been held in

decisions as the one rendered by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High

Court in Karnataka Vs. Parashram Kallappa Ghevade and Others

2007 Crl. L.J.479 that a weapon in the nature of bamboo stick cannot be

termed as a weapon of offence which is likely to cause death as envisaged

in Sectionsection 326 of the IPC and therefore, even if the elements of grievous

hurt are otherwise fulfilled at best, only an offence as per Sectionsection 325 of the

IPC (punishment for causing grievous hurt) could alone be made out in

such cases which is a bailable offence and not the serious non-bailable

offence as per Sectionsection 326 of the IPC. The Division Bench of the

Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Vs. Parashram Kallappa

Ghevade and Others (supra) 2007 Crl. L.J.479 has dealt with the case,

where the accused had assaulted the victim with a bamboo stick and the x-ray

has disclosed that the victim had suffered fracture and the prosecution has

alleged that thereby the accused has committed any offence as per Sectionsection

326 of the IPC. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held in the

afore stated judgment that in the absence of various factors like the size,
Bail Appl..No.7826 OF 2019

4

thickness and sharpness of the bamboo stick used for assault, it cannot be

said that the said weapon used by the accused would come within the ambit

of “dangerous weapon” as envisaged in Sectionsection 325 of the IPC and that

therefore, the serious non-bailable offence as per Sectionsection 326 of the IPC may

not be made out and in such cases, but only the bailable offence as per Sectionsection

325 of the IPC may be made out.

4. Having heard both sides and after careful evaluation of facts and

circumstances of this case, and taking note of the above said contention made

by the petitioner on the basis of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench

of Karnataka in the above said judgment, this Court is inclined to take the

view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not really be necessary

or warranted for effectuating the smooth and fair conduct of investigation in

this case.

5. Accordingly it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being

arrested in relation to his involvement in the above said crime then he shall

be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Fourty

Thousand only) and on his furnishing 2 solvent sureties for the like sum,

both to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

However, the grant of bail may be subject to the following conditions.

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

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

(iii)The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and
Bail Appl..No.7826 OF 2019

5

when required in that connection.

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

(v)If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the
petitioner, then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby
empowered to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the
appropriate time.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application

will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS

Nsd JUDGE