Simply Because Police Officer Is In Uniform When He Is Assaulted, Offence Of Assaulting Public Servant Will Not Attract: Kerala High Court
In a bail order on Tuesday, the Kerala High Court raised the question as to whether charges of assaulting a public servant in lawful discharge of his duty (Section 353 IPC) would lie when the officer assaulted was attending an inquiry. Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, allowing the bail petition, observed that simply because a police officer was in uniform, the offence could...
In a bail order on Tuesday, the Kerala High Court raised the question as to whether charges of assaulting a public servant in lawful discharge of his duty (Section 353 IPC) would lie when the officer assaulted was attending an inquiry.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, allowing the bail petition, observed that simply because a police officer was in uniform, the offence could not be attracted.
"At no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the defacto complainant was in lawful discharge of his duty as a public servant, at the time of the alleged incident. Simply because he is in uniform, Section 353 IPC will not attract. Then, how Section 353 IPC is added in this case is a question," the Court stated.
Justice Kunhikrishnan was hearing an anticipatory bail application moved by two lawyers, who were part of a group that allegedly assaulted a police officer on the High Court premises. The Police Officer, the defacto complainant, was in the High Court premises in connection with an enquiry being conducted against him. The enquiry was convened with the Advocate General to examine veracity of a complaint by a lawyer who accused the police officer of 'ill-treating' him in connection with a traffic fine.
The petitioners' lawyer, Advocate Babu S Nair pointed out to the bench that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners was Section 353 IPC. During proceedings, he also raised an allegation that the non-bailable offence, Section 353 IPC, was included with the malafide intention of implicating the lawyers for such an offence. This was illegally, he asserted.
Allowing the anticipatory bail application, the Court highlighted that Section 353 IPC primarily required that the assault or criminal force should be to deter the public servant who was discharging his official duty.
The Court, with reference to the facts pointed out that the defacto complainant was attending an enquiry based on a complaint filed by a lawyer when he was attacked.
"Simply because he is in uniform, Section 353 IPC will not attract. Then, how Section 353 IPC is added in this case is a question," the Court asks in his order.
The Court, additionally, remarked that there seemed force in the argument that the non-bailable offence was added just to implicate the petitioner-lawyers.
"The superior officers should look into this matter and take appropriate action in accordance to law. I do not want make any further observation about the merit of the case. I leave it there," Justice Kunhikrishnan notes in the bail order.
The Court underscored that the inquiry was to be conducted untrammelled by its observations, which were in the context of the bail application at hand. "According to me, if the petitioners are arrested, they should be released on self bond", the Court ruled.
In the event the petitioners were arrested, the Court ordered that they be released on bail on executing a self bond for Rs. 50,000/-.
With these observations, the bail application was disposed.
CASE: Rilgin V George v. State of Kerala and Anr.
COUNSEL: Advocate Babu S Nair for petitioner, PP Sreeja V for State.