High CourtsSingle Bench

Rahul vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 12 October 2021 · Citation: (2021) 10 KL CK 0064

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shircy V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 212, 294(b), 307, 323, 324, 427, 450
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 7651 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 436 words

Shircy V, J

1.

The petitioner who is undergoing incarceration since 12.07.2021 in connection with Crime No.1220 of 2021 of Valiyamala Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 450, 294(b), 427, 323, 324, 307 and 212 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, has moved this application for his release on bail.

2.

The prosecution allegation is that on 05.07.2021 at about 11.30 p.m, in prosecution of the common object to commit murder of the defacto complainant, this petitioner along with the other accused have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons trespassed into his residential house, abused in filthy language and then attacked him and caused grievous injuries on his scalp, thighs, etc. and thereby committed the aforsaid offences.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

3.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner he has been falsely implicated in the case though he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him.

4.

This application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor pointing out that the fact that the petitioner is involved in 10 criminal cases of similar nature. Moreover the 3rd accused who was along with the gang is a convict. While he was undergoing sentence he was granted parole and thus, he along with the other accused have committed the aforesaid offences.

5.

Their intention to cause death of the deceased is quite evident from the fatal injuries caused to him. Hence, this application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

6.

It is true that this petitioner is aged only 26 years. Most of the other accused including him are having criminal antecedents. This petitioner at this age itself is involved in 10 criminal cases. Most of the cases are of similar nature. Now the investigation of the case is over and charge sheet has been submitted before the court below.

7.

Considering the nature of the injuries caused by the accused with the intention to cause the death of the defacto complainant, the seriousness and the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner etc. would show that he is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. Moreover the place of occurrence is residential house of the defacto complainant and the time of occurrence is 11.30 p.m . These facts would intensify the gravity of the offences alleged against him.

Considering all these facts, I am not inclined to release him on bail though charge sheet has been submitted before the court .

Therefore, this application is dismissed.