Vineeth vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the first accused in Crime No.271/2024 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station, Ernakulam registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 212 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 r/w Section 25 and Section 7 r/w Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was arrested on 21.02.2024.

The concise case of the prosecution is that: on 11.02.2024, at around 22.30 hours, the accused 1 to 5, in prosecution of their common intention, on seeing the employees of the first informant, the first accused took out a pistol and fired at the two employees of the first informant, named Sujin and Akhil and Sujin suffered a grievous injury on his abdomen and Akhil suffered a serious injury on his left thigh. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri.Shabu Sreedharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 307 of the IPC and the provisions of the Arms Act, to deny bail to the petitioner. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner had fired at the two injured as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has been in custody for the last 110 days, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid. Moreover, all the other accused have been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is entitled to an order on parity. Hence, the application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner is an inveterate offender, since he is involved in eight other crimes of various police stations for committing serious offences. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing similar offences. Moreover, since the petitioner is a habitual offender, he will intimidate the witnesses and tamper with evidence. The other accused were released on bail, because they have no criminal antecedents. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.

On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that the specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner, who allegedly fired at the two injured with a pistol and they suffered grievous injuries. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is an accused in the following crimes:- (1) Crime No.69/2009 of the Ponkunnam Police Station, (2) Crime No.535/2008 of the Kalady Police Station, (3) Crime No.20/2008 of the Nedumbassery Airport Police Station, (4) Crime No.144/2018 of the Chalakkudy Police Station, (5) Crime No.795/2008 of the Kuruppumpady Police Station, (6) Crime No.2262/2013 of the Chavakkad Police Station, (7) Crime No. 1176/2017 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station, (8) Crime No.1223/2015 of the North Paravur Police Station.

In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the broad parameters for Courts while dealing with bail applications by holding as follows:

“9.xxx xxx xxx However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. 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”.

Similarly, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, [(2004) 7 SCC 528], the Honourable Supreme Court observed thus:

“11.The law regarding 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 with 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 [(2002) 3 SCC 598] and uran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338.)

Likewise, in Gurucharan Singh Ors. V. State (Delhi Administration) [(1978) 1 SCC 118], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that while considering an application of bail, it is necessary to consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or the State, and similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record and on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, that there are prima facie materials to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime, that the petitioner is a habitual offender and the reasonable apprehension projected by the prosecution that the petitioner may intimidate the witnesses and tamper with evidence, I am not inclined to allow the bail application, since it would have a deleterious impact on the society. Hence, I am convinced that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

Resultantly, the application is dismissed.