The court emphasized that bail should be denied in serious cases where there is a risk of witness tampering and where the accused has attempted to evade legal processes.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner is the fifth accused in Crime No.193 of 2025 of Thrikkunnapuzha Police Station, Alappuzha. The offences alleged against the petitioner are those under sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), 296(b) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS').

2. According to the FIR, accused 1 to 7 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons like iron rods and sword sticks, and attacked the defacto complainant with the intention to murder him, due to the enmity for not withdrawing the case against accused 1 and 5. On 23.03.2025 at around 7.10 P.M., first accused after exhorting to murder the defacto complainant, hit him on his left ribs and when he fell down, the other accused stamped him on various parts of body and the second accused hit him with a sword on the head while the first accused abused him and again hit him with the iron rod on the head and the defacto complainant sustained fracture of the ribs and nasal bone and suffered grievous injuries and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged.

3. Sri. S. Sanal Kumar, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Adv. Amrita Arun learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution allegations are totally false and the petitioner has been roped in as an accused without any basis. It was also submitted that petitioner was arrested on 30.03.2025 and therefore the continued detention is unnecessary considering the nature of allegations. It was further pointed out that the petitioner's wrist has been partially amputated and also that he is suffering from various illnesses and hence he may be released on bail.

4. Sri. K.A. Noushad, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious crime and that considering the nature of allegations, bail ought not to be granted.

5. Sri. B. Pramod, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, who got himself impleaded in the case, submitted that the defacto complainant was brutally assaulted for having filed a case against petitioner's father and that he had suffered serious injuries. It was also pointed out that petitioner had, immediately on his arrest, got himself admitted as an inpatient in the Medical College Hospital without any basis and continued there till recently and has managed to avoid detention under one pretext or the other.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. When the matter came up for consideration, it was submitted that petitioner was in the hospital from the date of his remand without any basis. Hence this Court by an order dated 22.05.2024 directed a report to be submitted regarding the reason why the petitioner remained in the hospital for long despite his remand to judicial custody. Reference was made to the decision in Anand Kumar K.N. v. State of Kerala, 2025 KHC OnLine 433.

8. Pursuant to the above direction, a report has been handed over across the Bar by the learned Public Prosecutor. A perusal of the report reveals that on 19.05.2025 the Medical Board was constituted and since it was found that the petitioner has to be discharged, he was discharged and sent to jail. Thus it is evident that despite the petitioner having been remanded on 30.03.2025, he eluded jail until 19.05.2025. In effect, petitioner has been in custody only for the last 7 days.

9. The petitioner and other accused are alleged to have brutally assaulted the defacto complainant. The complaint filed by the defacto complainant specifically refers to the involvement of the petitioner. Serious injuries have been inflicted on the injured who sustained two fractures on his ribs as well as a fracture on the nasal bone, indicating that he was assaulted brutally and as alleged in the FIR. Petitioner's presence at the scene of occurrence is specifically noted in the complaint. The report of the police handed over by the Prosecutor indicates that the injury on the nasal bone was inflicted by the petitioner. T