Shanavas vs State Of Kerala

Applications for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.PC.

The applicant in BA No.1541/2021 is the second accused, while the applicant in BA No.1591/2021 is the fourth accused in Crime No.2632/2020 of

Vattappara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341, 427, 506(I) and

307 read with Section 34 IPC.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that due to previous enmity towards the de facto complainant and his father on 21.12.2020 at about 9 p.m., while

the de facto complainant and his father were travelling on a motorcycle, the applicants and the other accused, totalling seven in number, in furtherance

of common intention wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant's motorcycle.Thereafter, they were assaulted by means of dangerous weapons

like iron rods and grievous hurt was caused to the de facto complainant by causing a fracture to his right hand. That apart, they were also intimidated

and mischief was committed by causing damage to the motorcycle and the de facto complainant also lost Rs.45,000/- in the milieu that had followed.

The applicants state that the allegations are not true and that the only allegation against the second accused is that he had beaten the de facto

complainant with hands and the allegation against the fourth accused is that he had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his father so as

to facilitate others to assault them. More over, it is also pointed out that the second accused was arrested on 3.1.2021, while the fourth accused was

arrested on 23.12.2020. They have been incarcerated for fairly long time. Custodial interrogation is over and there is nothing to be recovered from

them and therefore, they seek regular bail.

The learned counsels, Sri.M.R.Sarin and Sri.Vishnu Bhuvanendran, appearing for the applicants, were heard. The learned Public Prosecutor for the

State, Sri.Santhosh Peter, was also heard.

The learned Prosecutor vehemently opposed the applications for bail stating that this is an attempted murder. But, the accused did not succeed in

their designs. It is stated that the second accused is a notorious criminal involved in three other crimes, while the fourth accused was involved in one

another crime for having committed offence punishable under Section 326 IPC for having caused grievous hurt to the de facto complainant's father.

Under the circumstances, it is pointed out that he started with causing grievous hurt and now it is an attempted murder, and very soon, he may even

accomplish to eliminate the de facto complainant and his father by getting involved in an offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence, it is submitted by the

learned Prosecutor that the applicants are not entitled to the remedy of a bail at this stage. Final report would be filed within a week from now, and

hence, the applications may be dismissed.

After having heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the applicants and also the learned Prosecutor, I find that the antecedents

of the applicants are not good. The second accused is involved in three other crimes, while the fourth accused is involved in one another crime, in

which the the second accused is also involved and that is for having caused grievous hurt to the de facto complainant's father, who was again attacked

in this crime.

The learned counsels appearing for the applicants submit that the applicants were already released on bail in the crime for having caused grievous

hurt to the de facto complainant's father and the other crimes in which the second accused is involved are not of very grave in nature. Even in the

instant case, an offence under Section 307 IPC maynot be attracted, according to the learned counsels. This provision has been added deliberately to

see that the applicants are not enlarged on bail.

Going through the injuries sustained, I find that they were not life threatening. There was a fracture sustained to the hand of the de facto

complainant. But the remaining injuries were not so grave or serious. If the motive of the applicants was to commit murder, at least, some more

injuries would have been caused to the de facto complainant or his father. His father did not even sustain a grievous hurt. The overt acts attributed to

the applicants are very negligible. The fourth accused had allegedly wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his father and the second

accused had fisted them. Both of them were not wielding any dangerous weapons, with which they could have caused fatal injuries to the de facto

complainant and his father. Under the circumstances, I find that there is no purpose by detaining the applicants any longer for the purpose of

investigation. There is nothing to be recovered from them. But, considering their antecedents and the very fact that they had earlier attacked the de

facto complainant's father and caused grievous hurt to him, stringent conditions will have to be imposed to see that they do not get involved in further

crimes, particularly concerning the de facto complainant and his father.

In the result, the Bail Applications are allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-

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

conditions:

(i) They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of three months or till the filing of the

final report, whichever is earlier.

(ii) They shall not enter the jurisdiction of Vattappara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram for a period of six months, except for compliance of

condition No.(i).

(iii) They shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence.

(iv) They shall not get involved in similar offences 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.