High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 05 KL CK 0045

Shaji.P.E. vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 29 May 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.Ubaid, J
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 3829 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 432 words
1.

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.37 of 2019 of the Padagiri Police Station of Palakkad District. He is a contractor by profession. As contractor he had undertaken the construction of some staff quarters under the Malampuzha Division of the Public Works Department. At about 3.00 p.m. on 09.05.2019, an Overseer of the Engineer's Office visited the work site along with the Assistant Executive Engineer. The prosecution case is that when the Overseer pointed out some irregularities in the work, the petitioner got infuriated, he threatened and scolded the Overseer, and he even made an attempt to assault the Overseer in the presence of the Assistant Executive Engineer. On the next day, the Overseer made a complaint before the Assistant Executive Engineer who himself is a witness, and the said complaint was forwarded to the police by the Assistant Executive Engineer only on 16.05.2019. On the said complaint, the police registered the crime under Sections 353, 294(b), and 506(i) IPC. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested by the police on 23.05.2019, and he has been in custody since the date of arrest. On dismissal of this application for bail of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Alathur, the petitioner has come up before this Court for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2.

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find that the very essential elements of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not seen clearly in the complaint made by the public servant. It appears that his grievance practically is that he was threatened by the contractor, and the contractor even attempted to assault him in the presence of the Engineer. These things will not by itself come under Section 353 IPC. It will have to be explained how exactly discharge of public duty was obstructed by the petitioner. A perusal of the Case Diary shows that major past of investigation is over.

In the result, this application for bail is allowed. The petitioner will be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the court below. Bail is granted on condition that;

a. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Mondays for a period of six weeks.

b. The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the witnesses and he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise, except for official purposes in connection with the construction works.