Wilson vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.1242/2023 of the Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (2 in number and 7 other identifiable persons), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 324, 308, 506(ii), 427 and 395 r/w. S.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’). The petitioner was arrested on 02.09.2023.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 09.07.2023 at around 20.00 hours, the 9th accused sent a message to the defacto-complainant (injured) pretending to be his girl friend and requested him to go to a place suggested by him. Accordingly, on 10.07.2023 around 02.45 hours, the other accused reached the place where the 9th accused had brought the injured and all the accused hit the injured and he fall on the ground. The first accused attempted to stab the injured with a sharp knife on his chest. Somehow, the injured evaded the attack and he sustained an injury on his left leg. The second accused hit on the head of the injured with a wooden plank and all the other accused shouted to murder him. The accused robbed Rs.1,000/- from the body of the injured and they took away his ATM card and mobile phone. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

Heard; Sri. M. Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. Notwithstanding the other contentions raised in the application, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.09.2023, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the bail application may be allowed.

The learned Public Prosecutors seriously opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents. As on today, there are nine cases pending against the petitioner for committing offences of similar nature. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him sabotaging the investigation, intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Moreover, the petitioner is a menace to the society. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

The prosecution allegation is that the accused in prosecution of their common intention had called the injured to the place of occurrence and the petitioner stabbed him with a knife and he sustained a serious injury on his left leg. The other accused also assaulted the injured and they attempted to murder him. The offences alleged against the petitioner are serious and grave. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.2203/2015, C.C.No.2065/2017, C.C.No.203/2018, C.C.No.602/2018, C.C.No.1195/2020, C.C.No.449/2023 all of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Kollam and S.C.No.235/2018, S.C.No.235/2022 & S.C.No.1212/2018 of the Court of Session, Kollam. Therefore the facts reveal that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents and has no respect for the rule of law.

In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. [(2010) 14 SCC 496], 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 danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”

Subsequently, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and another [(2005) 2 SCC 42], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, while considering a bail application, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken. Nonetheless, the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge should be looked into. It is also explicitly observed that the mere fact that the accused has undergone a certain period of incarceration or that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail, especially when the gravity of the offence is severe, and there is an allegation of tampering with the evidence by the accused.

In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:

“12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.”

It is also worth recollecting the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr [(2012) 9 SCC 446] in the following lines:

“30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction on liberty of the accused.”

After bestowing my anxious consideration of the facts, materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar and on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents, who is involved in 9 other cases of similar nature, the reasonable apprehension projected by the prosecution that the petitioner may sabotage the trial of the cases, the potential severity of the punishment that is likely to be imposed on the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.09.2023, I am of the firm view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail, as it would have a deleterious impact on the society and justice would be thwarted. Hence, I hold that the application is meritless and is only liable to be dismissed.

Resultantly, the application is dismissed.