Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
1. This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.517 of 2023 of Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam District, alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. According to the prosecution, on 10-03-2023, at about 9.pm, the accused had brutally assaulted the father of the defacto complainant and he sustained serious injuries including a fracture of the vertebra (odontoid) and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged.
4. Sri.S.Sudheesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are false and that incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that the FIR was registered only three days after the incident and therefore, the prosecution case itself is false. It was further submitted that if at all any injury was sustained the same was due to some other reasons and that the petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused.
5. Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that the allegations are serious and that custodial interrogation is essential. According to the prosecutor, the defacto complainant's father was engaged by the petitioner in some odd jobs, and when the wages for the work were not paid, defacto complainant's father requested for the same petitioner assaulted him, inflicting serious injuries.
6. I have considered the rival contentions.
7. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the wound certificate is not available, I find from the case dairy that a treatment certificate is available indicating ‘odontoid fracture’ as alleged by the prosecution. The absence of a wound certificate is sought to be justified by the prosecution relying upon the treatment certificate and also the statement of other witnesses. Though the absence of a wound certificate is significant, considering the surrounding circumstances including the nature of the injury and the defacto complainant being treated at the Medical College Hospital, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner could be released on anticipatory bail.
8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer on 21.06.2023, he shall be subject to investigation and if the investigating officer proceeds to arrest him, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate without delay. In the event of any application for bail being filed the same shall be considered preferably on the same day itself. Since a warrant of arrest is pending against the petitioner, he shall not be arrested till the date of surrender.
Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.
