Sivasankara Pillai vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, seeking regular bail.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1003 of 2020 of Sooranadu West Police Station for having committed offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Sections 449 and 302 I.P.C were later added on 6-7-23.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 05.07.2023, at about 3.15 p.m., the accused allegedly caused grievous hurt to the deceased Peethambaran on his neck and legs using a chopper. The injured was reported dead from the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, at about 7.45 p.m., on 6.7.2023, thereby committed the above offences.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated. At any rate, he points out that the petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2023, and continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIS was registered after three hours and that he was implicated in the statement of the wife of one Sivaprasad, a neighbour who allegedly spoke about the altercation between the deceased and the accused. He argues that there was no injury on the petitioner, which shows that there was no scuffle and submits that the petitioner was under medical treatment for mental illness.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposing the petition on the basis of the report submitted that there were several serious injuries on the deceased, and the nature of the injuries suggested that the attack was from behind, which may be why the petitioner did not get injured. The role of the petitioner is also mentioned in the report submitted by the investigating officer.

Having heard the rival submissions, I do not think that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail at this stage, and the argument that the petitioner did not suffer any injury cannot be accepted prima facie as the nature of injuries clearly suggests an attack on the deceased from behind. Considering the gravity of the offence, the number of serious injuries on the body of the deceased, the nature of the evidence against the accused, the apprehension of the prosecution of the accused intimidating the witnesses, the chance of absconding, etc., cannot be ruled out. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to allow this petition.

Accordingly, this Bail application is dismissed.