AMAL PUTHIYAPARAMBIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application for Anticipatory Bail

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief is that, the applicant was irked by his non inclusion in a volleyball match which was taking place inside a rubber estate and the defacto complainant prevented him from taking part, because he was in a inebriated condition. The applicant allegedly attacked the defacto complainant and there was a scuffle in consequence of which the defacto complainant sustained injuries and the applicant committed the offence. The offence alleged against the applicant is that, he had assaulted the defacto complainant after wrongfully restraining him and also verbally abused him. He also had allegedly trespassed the house of the defacto complainant and made preparations to cause hurt. But there is also an indication that the incident took place inside the rubber estate and there is lack of clarity regarding the occurrence. Moreover, in the FI statement there is an allegation that the applicant had used a sharp edged weapon, which is yet to be identified. But no offence under Section 324 has been incorporated in the FIR. This is also an anomaly.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.