Anzil Rahman @ Lallu vs State Of Kerala

V.G.Arun, J

The appellants are accused Nos.1 and 5 in Crime No.2002 of 2022 of Punalur Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 452, 324, 326, 308, 294(b) and 506(ii) r/w 149 of IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

The prosecution allegation is that, on 13.11.2022 at about 11.00 p.m, the accused trespassed into the residence of the de facto complainant armed with swords and other dangerous weapons and inflicted injury on the brother of the de facto complainant, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The first appellant is alleged to have used the obscene language against the de facto complainant and of having attempted to inflict a cut injury on her head, which she obstructed, resulting in her little finger getting severed. The de facto complainant allegedly sustained injuries on her breast also. There is a further allegation that the first accused pushed the de facto complainant's sister with the back portion of a sword and criminally intimidated her.

Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that, although the offences under Sections 326 and 308 IPC are alleged, even accepting the prosecution story, those offences are not made out. It is submitted that, no ingredient for attracting offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act is also made out. Finally, it is submitted that the appellants are continuing in custody from 24.11.2022 onwards and no purpose will be served by their continued incarceration.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellants are involved in other offences and considering the heinous nature of the offence, they are not entitled for bail.

No doubt, the alleged act of the appellants is heinous in nature. Going by the averments, it is not clear as to the offence under SC/ST (PoA) Act is attracted. The question therefore, is whether the appellants should be denied bail, even after 85 days of custody. The investigation having progressed much, release of the appellants will not hamper the investigation. What is to be ensured is that, release of the appellants does not result in the de facto complainant and her relatives being endangered or threatened.

In the result, the appeal is allowed as under;

(i) Appellants shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

(ii) Appellants shall not enter the limits of the Punalur Police Station for a period of one month after their release.

(iii) Appellants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, in any manner, intimidate the de facto complainant or other witnesses.

(iv) Appellants shall not get involved in any other offence during the subsistence of this bail.