Vipin vs State Of Kerala

Gopinath P., J

This is an application for regular bail.

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.601 of 2023 of Pulikeezhu Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 452, 506(ii), 354, 354(1), 323, 324 and 308 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. The allegation against the petitioners is that they trespassed into the house of the de-facto complainant and attacked de-facto complainant and her son using weapons including a sword and a knife. The de-facto complainant and her son reportedly sustained injuries owing to the attack.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the crime has been registered against petitioners owing to the animosity of the de-facto complainant and her son with the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners have been in custody from 11.08.2023. Since recovery has been effected, there is no need to continue the petitioners in custody. It is also submitted that the accused Nos.5 and 6 in the case have already been granted bail by this Court through order dated 24.08.2023 in Bail Application No.7240 of 2023.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. He submits that the allegations against the petitioners are serious. It is submitted that both the de-facto complainant and her son had suffered injuries owing to the attack. It is submitted that the use of weapons clearly shows that the intention of the petitioners was to actually commit murder. It is submitted that both the petitioners have criminal antecedents. It is submitted that the petitioners are therefore, clearly not entitled to bail. It is submitted that this Court had granted bail to accused Nos. 5 and 6 only on the finding that no overt acts were alleged against the accused Nos.5 and 6.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in reply would submit that even if the case of the prosecutor were to be accepted, the case of the 2nd petitioner (3rd accused) is not different from the case of accused Nos.5 and 6, who have already been granted bail as early as on 24.08.2023. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner is suffering from seizure disorder as is evident from Annexure - A3 medical certificate and this may also be taken into consideration by this Court. It is submitted that the criminal antecedents reported against the petitioners are not in the near past and therefore that may not be taken as a ground to deny bail to the petitioners.

Having heard the leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am clearly of the opinion that the 1st petitioner cannot be granted bail at this stage. There are specific allegations against the 1st petitioner. It is seen that the 1st petitioner had used a sword and had attacked the de-facto complainant and her son and both of them had suffered injuries. Though recovery have been effected, that is not a ground to grant bail to the 1st petitioner. There are criminal antecedents, which again is a ground to deny bail to the 1st petitioner. In so far as the 2nd petitioner (3rd accused) is concerned, it appears that he stands on the same footing as accused Nos.5 and 6, who have already been granted bail by this Court through order dated 24.08.2023 in Bail Application No.7240 of 2023. The criminal antecedents reported against the 2nd petitioner (3rd accused) does not compel me to hold that he is not entitled to bail. Accordingly this bail application will stand dismissed in so far as it relates to the 1st petitioner and it will stand allowed in so far as it relates to the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:-

i) The 2nd petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii) The 2nd petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation.

iii) The 2nd petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Wednesday until the filing of the final report.

iv) The 2nd petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

v) The 2nd petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

vi) The 2nd petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

vii) The 2nd petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the trial Court.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.