Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36090
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK MENON, J
ANILKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./1573/2021
SMT.POOJA PANKAJ, SRI.P.M.RAFIQ, SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SRI.AJEESH K.SASI, SRI.V.C.SARATH, SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, SRUTHY N. BHAT, SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SRI.P.M.SANEER, SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
Anticipatory bail may be denied if the accused poses a significant risk of re-offending or absconding, particularly in serious criminal cases.
Headnote:
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Cr.P.C. Section 438 - The court discussed the application for anticipatory bail under Cr.P.C. Section 438, emphasizing the gravity of the alleged offences and the applicant's prior involvement in a related case, leading to denial of bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant faces charges of attempted murder for allegedly attacking the de facto complainant with a knife. The applicant claims false implication due to prior conflicts, asserting that injuries were self-inflicted during an altercation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant's use of a knife and the severity of the charges warranted concern. Legal arguments regarding self-defense and the nature of the injuries were noted but deemed insufficient to justify anticipatory bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail considering the severity of the charges and possible implications of a prior conflict with the de facto complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The gravity of the alleged offences and the applicant's history of similar accusations indicate a risk that the applicant could abscond or re-offend, justifying the denial of anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: Anticipatory bail is denied; the applicant must surrender to the investigating officer.
O R D E R
Dated this the 23rd day of March 2021 This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.16/2021 of Chokli Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 307 of the I.P.C.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
14.01.2021 at about 5.30 PM, at Peringathoor Amsom in Kariyad Bharathipuram, while the de facto complainant and his friends were standing near the bus stop, the applicant reached on a scooter armed with a knife and thereafter attacked the de facto complainant with the intention to commit murder. The de facto complainant evaded the blow with the knife and sustained a lacerated injury measuring 18 x 2 cms. on his forehead and thus the applicant allegedly committed the offence of attempted murder.
4. The applicant states that the allegations are not true and that earlier he was accused of extortion on the complaint of the de facto complainant’s brother, who is a P.W.D. contractor and he was granted anticipatory bail in that Crime No.82/2020 of the same Police Station. It is with the intention to foist another false case against the applicant, that this crime has been registered. It is also stated that it is actually the de facto complainant and his friends, who had intercepted the applicant while he was coming on a scooter and attempted to attack the applicant and during the altercation he fell down and sustained the injury on his forehead. That injury is now attempted to to utilised to support the allegation against the applicant for having attacked the de facto complainant with a knife to commit his murder. In fact, the applicant had no intention to commit murder and he has been falsely implicated, and therfore, seeks pre-arrest bail.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Counsel appearing for the de facto complainant was also heard.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor points out the injury that was sustained by the de facto complainant, which according to them cannot be sustained by a mere fall. It was a deliberate attack by the applicant brandishing a knife and because the de facto complainant had succeeded in evading that blow, he sustained an injury on his forehead; otherwise it could have proved fatal. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there was no need for the applicant to move around with a knife in his possession if he had no intention to commit the murder. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant explained it by saying that it was the de facto complainant had earlier intimidated in the morning and the applicant anticipated an attack by the de facto complainant and his friends and it was for the purpose of self-defence that he had armed with a knife and when the de facto complainant and his friends ultimately did attack him, the applicant had only brandished the knife and de facto complainant fell down and sustained the injury. There was no injury caused by the applicant with the knife and had the injury been caused with a knife, it could have an incised wound and not a lacerated wound. It is more likely to be caused due to a fall. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that a deep lacerated wound can also be caused by a knife; because there was an evasive action taken by the de facto complainant and the entire sharp edge of the knife could not be employed by the applicant successfully to cause an incised wound.
7. Appreciating the submissions made on both sides, I find that the applicant is accused of a very grave offence. He also was armed with a knife. Whether it was an act of self-defence or whether it was an aggressive act on the part of the applicant, are all matters to be considered by the trial court.
Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the applicant was earlier accused of committing extortion against the brother of the
