Jeo K.C v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/21ST SRAVANA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 4657 of 2015 -------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 609/2015 OF ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION , THRISSUR ----------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

-------------------------------------- JEO K.C, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.CHINNAN, KANNANAIKKAL HOUSE, CHOWANNUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR.

BY ADV. SRI.C.PRABIN BENNY RESPONDENT(S):

------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

==================== B.A.No. 4657 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of August, 2015

O R D E R

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 609 of 2015 of Erumapetty Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 341, 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim had borrowed certain amount from the petitioner about one year ago. The former discharged the debt. It is alleged that the latter used to threaten the victim on phone demanding more amount towards interest. So the victim stopped attending the phone call of the petitioner. On 14.06.2015, at 10.00 in the night, the victim heard his calling bell ringing. He saw the petitioner outside his house. The petitioner informed the victim that he had something to tell him. The petitioner started talking about the loan transaction. He was under the influence of alcohol. So the victim told him that the matter could be discussed later. The petitioner got into his car and called the victim to him. At his request, the victim sat near him in the car. Then the petitioner hit

B.A.No. 4657 of 2015 -: 2 :- him in the face with an electric iron causing him serious injuries. This is the prosecution case.

3.

Heard.

4.

The victim was admitted to hospital at 11.20 p.m. The doctor noticed contused lacerated wound on the right side of his face and fracture of zygoma on the right side. This makes probable the prosecution version that he was hit in the face with an electric iron. Learned counsel submits that the police have registered a case against the victim also for assaulting the petitioner; the close relatives of the victim are also accused in that case. That may be true. But that is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in this case. In the result, this application is dismissed. Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge