The Kerala High Court has granted bail to an Advocate clerk in a case registered on the basis of a complaint by a Family Court Judge that he had interrupted the Court proceedings and had used filthy language at a police constable.
Based on the complaint of the judge, the police had registered a case against the clerk, alleging Sections 353, 354(A)(1)(iv) and 509 of IPC.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan ,after hearing the petitioner and the prosecution, observed that the essential requisites of Section 353 IPC -conduct of assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty - was absent in the instant case. And the rest of the charges level against the petitioner are regarding bailable offences, observed by the Court.
" To attract Section 353 IPC assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty is necessary. The assault and criminal force are defined in Sections 350 and 351 IPC. Even if, the entire averments in the complaint made by the learned Family Court Judge are accepted, no offence under Section 353 IPC is made out ", held by the Court.
The Complaint of the Judge was based on the alleged incident that the petitioner, who is an Advocate clerk had interrupted the court proceedings of the Family Court Etumanoor while the Court session was progressing. And on this account, when the police tried to question the petitioner the petitioner had misbehaved to the police constable. The Family Court Judge based on the information received from the respective police constable had sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, which was forwarded to the Ettumanoor Police Station and the Ettumanoor Police registered the case against the Petitioner.
Wrongful conduct is regretted.
The Petitioner an Advocate Clerk of 35 years of experience, through his counsel had submitted before the court that he has not committed any offence intentionally. "According to him, in a spur of moment he made certain words for which he regrets. He is ready to apologize before the learned Judge", stated by the Petitioner.
The Court had rendered its displeasure against the Advocates Clerk for his conduct and ordered him not to enter in to any Court halls in the Kottayam District till the Investigation and Trial is over. The Court had observed that, "The behaviour of the petitioner, who is a registered Advocate Clerk cannot be appreciated. Therefore, the petitioner shall not enter any of the court halls in Kottayam District till the investigation and trial in this case if any is over, except for appearance in court in connection with this case."
The Court had granted bail to the petitioner on conditions asking for his full cooperation in the investigation and interrogation. Also the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 10 am till the final report is filed before the court concerned
CASE DETAILS :
TITLE : Aneesh B.Kumar v. State of Kerala & Others
CASE NO: Bail App. No. 1653 OF 2020
CORAM : Justice P.V.KunhiKrishnan
ORDER DATE : 08/07/2020