Shabeer P vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the second accused in Crime No.737/2023 of the Kannur Town Police Station, Kannur, registered against the accused (three in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 398, 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The gist of the prosecution case is that: around 2.10 hours, on 5.6.2023, the accused in prosecution of the common intention to commit theft, wrongfully restrained a person named Jinto, who was the driver of the lorry bearing No. KL 58 S 0031, and when he attempted to prevent them from committing the act, the first accused stabbed him with a knife on his leg and caused grievous injury to him, which resulted in his death. The accused 2 and 3 assisted the first accused to commit the above offences. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Smt. M.A.Jinsa Mol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, the learned Additional General of Prosecution appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no specific overt act alleged against him. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 5.6.2023, which is more than 225 days. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution vehemently opposed the application and contended that the petitioner is a history sheeter. The petitioner is involved in seven other cases, committing the offences including robbery and offences under the NDPS Act. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences and causing breach of peace in the locality. Hence, the petitioner may not be released on bail and the bail application may be dismissed.

The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he along with other accused committed murder of a person named Jinto. It is revealed from the report filed by the Investigating Officer that, the petitioner is involved in seven other crimes of the Kannur Police Station, namely, Crime No.801/2008 registered for committing the offences under Sections 380, 457, 461 of the IPC, Crime No. 844/2008 registered for committing the offence of Section 379 of IPC, Crime No. 522/2008 registered for committing the offences under Sections 380, 457, 461of IPC, Crime No.126/2006 registered for committing the offences under Sections 380, 457 of IPC, Crime No. 237/2019 registered for committing the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act case, Crime No.584/2022 registered for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(a) of the NDPS Act and Crime No.196/2023 registered for committing the offence under under Section 41(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents.

In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another [(2010) 14 SCC 496], in paragraph 9, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“9. …...... It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation:

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”

Again, the Honourable Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another [AIR 2004 SC 1866] has held thus:

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are, (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and others (2002(3) SCC 598) and Puran v. Rambilas and another (2001 (6) SCC 338)”

On an anxious consideration of the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the nature, seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner in the case on hand and taking into account the deleterious impact that would be caused to the society, if the petitioner is released on bail, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage, as there is a danger of justice being thwarted. The application is meritless and it is only to be dismissed.

Resultantly, the application is dismissed.