CASE TITLE:
Rilgin Vs George & Anr Vs State Of Kerala & Anr
DATE OF ORDER:
04TH MAY, 2022
JUDGE(S):
HON’BLE JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
PARTIES:
PETITIONER: RILGIN V GEORGE & ANR
RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA AND ANR
IMPORTANT PROVISION
Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
SUBJECT
The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to two lawyers accused of assaulting a police officer in uniform while he was at the Court for an ongoing investigation. After suspecting that they were booked under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a deliberate attempt to implicate them in a non-bailable offence, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan decided to allow the plea.
BRIEF FACTS
- The Cherthala Police detained a lawyer as an accused in a traffic incident, after which he claimed ill-treatment from police officers. Several supporters gathered in front of the Police Station to demand his release. On 15.02.2021, the higher Police Officers and the Advocate General launched an investigation at the Advocate General's office within the High Court premises.
- The aforementioned lawyer and a Circle Inspector of Police had arrived at the High Court to attend the investigation.
- Following the investigation, as the Circle Inspector was leaving the court premises, several lawyers, including the petitioners, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, committed a riot armed with deadly weapons, and hurled abuses at him and assaulted him in pursuit of their common goal. The petitioners and others were charged under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 323, 294(b) r/w 149.
- By no means can it be said that the defacto complainant was in the lawful discharge of his duties as a public servant at the time of the alleged incident. Section 353 IPC will not be attracted simply because he is in uniform. Then the question of how Section 353 IPC is added in this case arises.
- Advocate Babu S. Nair appeared on behalf of the petitioners and argued that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners under Section 353 was included with the malafide intention of implicating the lawyers in a non-bailable offence.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- Sreeja V, the Public Prosecutor, represented the State in the case. The Court noted that the petitioners' only non-bailable offence was with the petitioners.
- The Public Prosecutor said the petitioner’s argument that Section 353 IPC was added solely to implicate lawyers in non-bailable offences has some merit. Superior officers should investigate this matter and take appropriate legal action.
- She chose not to speak on the merits of the case and leave it as it is. Any observation in this order does not limit the Officer's ability to conduct an investigation.
CONCLUSION
It was made clear that these observations were made solely for the purpose of considering the bail application. As a result, if the petitioners were arrested, it was ordered that they be released on self-bond of Rs. 50,000/.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
