ANILKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime registered initially, inter alia, under Secs.324 and 308 of the IPC. The 1st accused has already been granted bail by another bench of this Court. The alleged incident took place on 13/1/06. The crime was registered initially only, inter alia, under Secs.324 and 308 of the IPC. The petitioner had actually suffered a grievous hurt. That fact was reported to the learned Magistrate only long later on 13/12/06. The petitioner's grievance is that though subsequently the allegation under Secs.307 and 326 of the IPC have been incorporated, it was not done promptly and that from 13/1/06 to 13/12/06 the case was reckoned as one under Secs.324 and 308 of the IPC only.

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is now proceeding under Secs.307 and 326 of the IPC. There is, undoubtedly, a delay on the part of the Investigating Officer in making the report that Sec.326 of the IPC is also involved; but it was not wilful or deliberate. The officer was under the impression that there is a graver allegation under Sec.308 of the IPC already raised. The anticipatory bail was granted by another Bench of this Court cognizant of the fact that the allegations are raised under Sec.308 of the IPC.

(3.) I am certainly dissatisfied with the conduct of the investigation. The grievous hurt was suffered by the petitioner on 13/1/06 and for no acceptable reason that fact was reported to the court only on 13/12/06.