Ancil vs State Of Kerala

Shircy V, J

Application for regular bail.

The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No. 47 of 2021 of Anchalammoodu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections

447, 294(b), 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution allegation is that on 02.02.2021 at about 10.30 p.m., this petitioner along with the other accused had trespassed into the residential

house of the defacto complainant with the intention to assault him, abused him in filthy language and wrongfully restrained him and assaulted with

deadly weapons and caused grievous injuries to him including fracture. When the wife of the defacto complainant intervened to rescue him, she was

also assaulted by this petitioner and the other accused and caused injuries to her. Thereby, the accused have committed the aforesaid offences.

Of course, the petitioner is in custody since 05.02.2021. But now the investigation of the case is over and charge sheet has been filed

before the court concerned on 09.03.2021 itself.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is totally innocent, but he has been falsely implicated in the case and as he is undergoing

incarceration right from the date of his arrest, this application for his release on bail.

This application is vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor pointing out the criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The order of the

court below itself reflects the total number of cases in which the petitioner is an accused. In fact there are 13 cases against him and no doubt thatÂ

itself shows that he is a habitual offender. That be so, granting of bail to him will definitely cause hindrance to the trial of the case. HeÂ

has even been convicted in one or two cases as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor.

As the petitioner is having such a criminal background, the possibility of intimidating the witnesses to the prosecution cannot be ruled

out. So also, there is every chance to repeat similar offences in future. Considering all these facts, I think that the petitioner is not entitled to be

enlarged on bail though the investigation of the case is over and final report has been filed.

Hence, dismissed.