Jaay @Zahid A vs State Of Kerala

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

The applicant is the 3rd accused in Crime No.768/2020 of Kumbla Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427 and 308 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31.10.2020 at about 8.30 AM while the de facto complainant and his wife were travelling in their car bearing registration No.KL-60-R-1565 and reached near Baithala in Mangalppady Village, the applicant along with other accused came in two cars driven and dashed against the car driven by the de facto complainant and attempted to cause his death and thereby committed attempted culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Thereafter, the 2nd accused fired a gunshot against the car of the de facto complainant's son, which was parked in front of his house and thus the accused persons committed the offence under the Arms Act as well. A loss of Rs.5 lakhs was sustained because of that act of the accused.

The applicant states that he is innocent and that the allegations are not true and that non-bailable offence are incorporated only for the purpose of denying bail to the applicant, and therefore, he may be granted bail. He is willing to cooperate with the investigation.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the applicant has three other criminal antecedents against him. Under the circumstances, in case, the applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility of him intimidating the de facto complainant and his wife and committing offences of similar nature. It is also submitted that the other co-accused has similar criminal antecedents. Under the circumstances, the bail application has vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

After having heard the submissions made by both sides, I find that the allegation against the applicant is very grave. Car was used to dash against the car driven by the de facto complainant, which could have resulted in his death. However, the de facto complainant escaped, and thereafter, a gunshot was also fired against the house of the de facto complainant, causing the damage to the car owned by the de facto complainant's son. The intention of the applicant and other co-accused are intimating, and therefore, I find that this is not a case fit for the applicant to be released on anticipatory bail. The applicant is therefore directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, after interrogation and recovery, if any, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day.