Athul & Rahul v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 1528 OF 2024`** ``` CRIME NO.120/2024 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 & 2:`** - **`1 ATHUL AGED 25 YEARS S/O KISHORE, PANDIYATHU HOUSE, HARISREE NAGAR, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR., PIN - 680545`** - **`2 RAHUL AGED 25 YEARS S/O SURESH, THOTTAPPULLY HOUSE, KALLU SHAP ROAD, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR., PIN - 680545 BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH NEELANJANA NAIR ANJANA SURESH.E`** ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY ADV SRI. C. S. HRITHWIK – SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1528 OF 2024 ``` ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** **-------------------------------------------------------B.A. No. 1528 OF 2024 ------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of March, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.120/2024 of the Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were arrested on 16.02.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 12.02.2024 the accused in furtherance of their common intention to murder the defacto complainant, the first accused inflicted a cut injury on his forehead and ``` 3 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1528 OF 2024`** stabbed on his neck with the handle of the knife. The first accused also hit the defacto complainant on his nose with his hand. The second accused aslo hit on the back of the head of the defacto complainant with his hand. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri. Sasith M. R., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crime. In any case, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not be made out, since the defacto complainant had not suffered grievous injuries. The petitioners have been in judicial custody since 16.02.2024. The investigation in the case ``` 4 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1528 OF 2024`** is practically complete and the recovery has been effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He contended that the petitioners have committed heinous offences by inflicting grievous injuries on the defacto complainant. The investigation of the case is still in progress. If the petitioners are released on bail, it would hamper with the investigation in the crime. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On an evaluation of the materials placed on record, it can be gathered that, the defacto complainant had suffered grievous injuries on his neck, forehead, head and nose due to the alleged attack made by the accused 1 and 2. Indisputably, the petitioners surrendered only on 16.02.2024. The investigation is said to be in progress. ``` 5 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO.1528 OF 2024 ``` ## 7. 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.” ## 8. Subsequently, in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.** ## **Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and another** ``` 6 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1528 OF 2024`** [(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. ``` 7 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1528 OF 2024`** 9. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record and on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations levelled against the petitioners, the potential severity of the punishment that is likely to be imposed on them, that the investigation is still in progress and recovery is to be effected, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail at this stage, since it would have a deleterious impact on the society. Hence, I hold that the application is only liable to be rejected. Resultantly, the application is dismissed. **Sd/C.S. DIAS JUDGE** BR ``` 8 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO.1528 OF 2024`** ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1528/2024`** ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 120/2024 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.02.2024 IN CMP NO.1062/2024 ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL ```