Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.1551 of 2020 of Chathannoor Police Station, Kollam, for having allegedly committed offences

punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

Owing to prior enmity with the defacto complainant, who is a relative of the applicant, on 11.09.2020 at about 2.30PM, the applicant wrongfully

restrained the defacto complainant, who was a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-02-AD3477 at the south of Karamcodu

Spinning Mill Junction, Kollam-Thiruvananthapuram NH66. He hurled abuses at him and when the defacto complainant alighted from the motor cycle,

he was stabbed on the left armpit with a knife and thereafter he was also beaten with a beer bottle on his head. The defacto complainant allegedly

sustained very grievous injuries on his head, scalp and also on other parts of the body.

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. It is also stated that there is a CCTV footage, which would indicate that it was

the defacto complainant, who was the aggressor. And, therefore, the applicant may be granted bail since he has been in custody from 12.09.2020. The

recovery is complete and no purpose would be served by further incarceration of the applicant.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the

applicant is a notorious criminal having six other criminal cases registered against him from offences ranging from 427, 325, 402 and 308 of the IPC

apart from offences under the Arms Act. It is stated that in case, the applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility that he may commit

offences of similar nature and the defacto complainant being a relative of the applicant, there is every possibility that he may be subjected to threat

and intimidation. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant states that the applicant has been in custody for more than 50 days now and

therefore, no purpose would be served by further incarceration.

Considering the antecedents of the applicant and the grievous grave nature of the injuries which was sustained by the applicant, which could have

resulted in his death, I find that the applicant is not entitled to any leniency at this stage. And, the application for bail is only to be dismissed.