Adarsh vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P.J

The first accused in Crime No. 1204/2023 of Eravipuram police station, Kollam district registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 307, 324 and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has filed this application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail

The prosecution case is that on 13.12.2018 at 7 p.m., the petitioner along with accused No.2 in furtherance of their common intention attacked the defacto complainant at a place called Punthalathamzham and voluntarily caused hurt to him by means of swords and inflicted grave injuries and attempted to commit murder, and thereby committed the above offence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

The learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was victimized in this case and the petitioner is under bail for all the other crimes registered against him. It is further submits that the petitioner is an aggrieved person and not an aggressor and the petitioner is the sole earning member of the whole family.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application by filing a report submits that there are several antecedents against the petitioner and the details of the injury inflicted on the victim also dis-entitles the petitioner from getting bail. He also contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in 15 other crimes, there is every chance of the petitioner to repeat similar crimes if released on bail and also to intimidate the witnesses and to flee from the clutches of law.

Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner that accused Nos. 1 to 3 with an intention to murder the defacto complainant due to the enmity of questioning accused persons for causing bodily harm to a relative of the defacto complainant, attacked with swords, the defacto complainant had sustained nine serious and the weapon used was a sword of 71 cm length and another one of 60 cm length for committing the offence. There are 16 criminal antecedents against the petitioner in various police stations including under the POCSO Act. It is thus clear that the petitioner has a propensity to continuously commit crimes, in such a case balancing between the individual liberty and the societal interest, I hold that the petitioner cannot be granted bail. The apprehension of the prosecution that there is every chance of the petitioner repeating similar crimes, intimidating the witnesses and fleeing from the clutches of law is well founded. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.