Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 1697 OF 2022 CRIME NO.50/2022 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1 RAJESH @ THOTHI RAJESH, AGED 31 YEARS KULATHIL VEEDU KUZHIVILA KARATHALA THALAYAL BALARAMAPURAM TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695501 2 KANNAN, AGED 31 YEARS S/O SURESH @ SURAN KULATHIL VEEDU EDAKKONAM THEMBAMUTTOM THALAYAL BALARAMAPURAM VILLAGE TRIVANDRUM., PIN - 695501 BY ADV JISHA P.C. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 SRI. T.R. RANJITH (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
ORDER
This is an application for regular bail.
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 50 of 2022 of
Balaramapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 324, 326 & 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that owing to previous
animosity, the accused in furtherance of their common intention to cause grievous hurt and to commit murder of the de facto complainant, attacked him with a chopper aiming at his head, which was evaded by him, as a result of which, he sustained injury on his hand. It is also alleged that when the de facto complainant was again attacked, he sustained injury on the right side of his abdomen and that when he moved back holding his abdomen, the 2nd accused restrained him and the 1 st accused hit him on the back side of his head using the chopper, causing fracture to his skull and to his hand. After the de facto complainant fell down, it is alleged that, the 1st accused inflicted injury on his left hand and leg by whacking him with the chopper. ..3..
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
are absolutely innocent in the matter and that they have been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the petitioners have been in custody for 75 days and that their continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation. It is further submitted that the petitioners are willing to comply with any condition that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of
bail. It is submitted that both the petitioners have criminal antecedents and as many as 11 cases are registered against each of them and that most of those cases involve the commission of similar offences by the petitioners. It is pointed out that both the petitioners are involved in at least three cases alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 308 of the IPC. It is submitted that following investigation, a final report has already been filed in the matter and that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail at this point of time. It is further submitted that considering the registration of the present case against the petitioners, the prosecution has approached the court, where the other cases are pending, for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners in those cases. ..4..
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having
heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am convinced that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail at this point of time, mainly on account of the fact that several criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioners. Moreover, the prosecution has already moved for the cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners in the other cases. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this Court to release the petitioners on bail at this stage.
In the result, the bail application stands dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE bka/31.03.2022