Mershid vs State Of Kerala

The applicant is the 1st accused in Crime No.3022 of 2019 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam, for having allegedly committed offences

punishable under Sections 341, 324, 427, 294(b), 308 and 440 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

On 27.12.2019 at about 11.45 PM, the applicant along with the other co-accused, in furtherance of common intention, wrongfully restrained the

defacto complainant and assaulted him with an iron rod, which he evaded. The iron rod fell on the car causing damage to the car and thereby the

applicant committed mischief. Thereafter, the applicant and his friends also assaulted the defacto complainant. No serious injuries were caused. Had

the assault with the iron rod sustained by the defacto complainant on his head, it could have proved fatal and thus the applicant along with the others

attempted to commit culpable homicide. The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. And, moreover, no injury has been

caused to the defacto complainant and he has been in custody since 24.10.2020. And, therefore, he may be released on bail.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the

application for bail mainly on the ground that the applicant has 11 criminal antecedents against him, including an offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that all the crimes except one which were pending against him including the crime under

Section 302 IPC ended in acquittal and has been disposed of. There is only one other crime presently pending against him apart from the instant case.

Hence, he may not be denied bail for the reason that he has got criminal antecedents. The learned Public Prosecutor has also pointed out that

proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C were initiated against the applicant. Considering the notoriety of the applicant in getting involved in

crimes frequently, he may not be released on bail is the argument advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

After having heard the submissions of both sides, I find that the applicant is only involved in one more crime apart from the present one. He has

been released on bail in that crime. The case under Section 302 IPC has ended in acquittal. Under the circumstances, I find that further incarceration

of the applicant may not be necessary. The defacto complainant has also not sustained any life threatening injury which would attract an offence

under Section 308 IPC.

In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the execution of a 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 following further conditions:

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9.00 AM and 12.00 PM for a period of two months or till filing of the

final report whichever is earlier.

(ii) He shall surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer and if he does not have one, file an affidavit to that effect, which shall be produced

before the jurisdictional court.

(iii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

(iv) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail period.

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.

The bail application is allowed.