Madhu vs State Of Kerala

Application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.PC. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.688/2020 of Kollengode Police Station for

having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.12.2020 at about 4.30 AM, the accused allegedly attacked his brother, the de facto complainant, with a

chopper while he was sleeping, and inflicted lacerated injuries on his forehead and abrasions all over the body and thus attempted to commit murder.

The applicant states that the allegations are not true and that he had no intention or motive to commit murder. It is stated that the applicant and the de

facto complainant were having alcohol and subsequently, there was an altercation between them with regard to an old dispute on the property which

led to a scuffle and the de facto complainant sustained some injuries. The applicant had no intention or motive to commit murder. Hence, offence

under Section 307 IPC is not attracted. It is only because earlier he was involved in a crime for offence under Section 302 IPC that this crime is

registered under Section 307 IPC. The injuries were not life threatening and the de facto complainant has been completely recovered from the injuries.

The applicant was arrested on 2.12.2020 and has been in custody since then. The investigation is over, recovery has been effected and final report has

been filed and taken on the files of the judicial Magistrate as CP No.21/2021 and is pending committal proceedings. Hence, the applicant seeks bail.

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

The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the applicant is a person having criminal antecedents. In the year 2013, he was involved in a crime for

committing murder and the trail in that crime is still pending. This would show that the applicant has a very violent tendency to commit crime and if he

is released on bail, there is every possibility that he may get involved in offences of similar nature and cause threat to the de facto complainant. Hence,

the bail application is vehemently opposed.

After having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Prosecutor, I find that the earlier Crime was in the year 2013, and

thereafter, he has not been involved in any crime. Apart from these two crimes, he is not involved in any other case. Therefore, it cannot be said that

the applicant is a habitual offender having criminal proclivity. The injury sustained to the de facto complainant is not life threatening. Under the

circumstances, I find no reason for further detention of the applicant. But considering the tendency to commit crime, stringent conditions can be

imposed.

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty

thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on the following conditions:

(i) He shall not enter the Kollengode police station limit until the trial is over.

(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses.

(iii) He shall not get involved in similar offence during the currency of the bail.

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.