The court emphasized that bail should be denied when serious charges are involved, especially with a history of similar offences and risk of witness tampering.

ORDER :

C.S.DIAS, J.

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, by the 1^st accused in Crime No.329/2024 of the Kundara Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 324, 353, 332 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ' IPC '). The petitioner was arrested on 24.04.2024.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: on 25.02.2024, at around 19.10 hours, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, obstructed the official duties of the police officers and with an intention to cause their death, accused 1 to 3 hurled obscene words at them and the 2^nd accused beat on the chest of the informant and the 1^st accused grabbed a lathi and beat the police officers. Thereafter, the accused beat the Police Officer named Sunil Kumar on his head with the lathi and the accused 2 and 3 hit a Civil Police Officer named George James and the informant with their hands and they suffered injuries. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. Heard; Sri.K.Vijayan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the offences under Sections 307 , 332 and 353 of the IPC as alleged by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated the above offences for the purpose of denying bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 40 days. The investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report objecting the grant of bail to the petitioner. It is, inter alia, contended that the petitioner is an inveterate offender, since he is involved in eight other crimes of similar nature of the Kayamkulam, Kareelakulangara, Anchalumoodu, Mavelikkara and Kundara Police Stations. The petitioner has caused serious injuries to the informant as well as the other two Police Officers. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing a similar office. Moreover, the petitioner may threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. The learned Public Prosecutor made available the accident register cum wound certificate dated 25.02.2024 issued by the Taluk Hospital, Kundara, to substantiate the fact that the informant had suffered a contusion of 3x2 cm on his forearm. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

6. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, the petitioner along with the other accused had obstructed the informant and the other civil Police Officers from discharging their official duties. Subsequently, he also assaulted the informant and caused serious injuries to him. This aspect, prima facie stands corroborated by the accident register cum wound certificate. In addition to the same, it is on record that the petitioner is an accused in the following crimes:

“Crime No.1330/2023 u/s 20(b)(ii)A

Crime No.235/2022 u/s 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 506, 324, 326, 307, 427 r/w 149 IPC

Crime No.196/2019 u/s341, 323, 324, 294(b), 308 r/w 34 IPC .

Crime No.2414/2017 u/s 279, 337, 304(A) IPC

Crime No.1800/2016 u/s 457, 380, 461, 411, 34 IPC

Crime No.381/2014 u/s.324, 308 r/w 34 IPC

Crime No.1146/2022 u/s 294(b), 323, 324, 453, 354, 308, 427 r/w 34 IPC

Crime No.2190/2022 u/s 294(b), 324, 307, 353, 332 r/w 34 IPC ”

7. A reading of the above statistics reveal that all the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature. Therefore, prima facie, I