The court must consider the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the accusations, the accused's criminal history, and the likelihood of intimidating witnesses and sabotaging the trial when deciding on a bail application.

Headnote:
Bail Application - Criminal Offences - The court dismissed the bail application of the accused, considering the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the accusations, the accused's criminal history, and the likelihood of intimidating witnesses and sabotaging the trial if released on bail.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the second accused in Crime No.325/2022, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stating innocence and unnecessary detention.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the bail application, considering the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the accusations, the accused's criminal history, and the likelihood of intimidating witnesses and sabotaging the trial if released on bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, accused of multiple criminal offences, should be granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the accused's criminal history, the likelihood of intimidating witnesses and sabotaging the trial, and the impact on society and justice if the petitioner was released on bail.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed by the court.

O R D E R

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the second accused in Crime No.325/2022 of the Ramapuram Police Station, Kottayam registered against the accused (five in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 328, 447, 212 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2022.

2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused in furtherance of their common intention and out of the previous animosity towards the Police Officials attached to the Ramapuram Police Station, indulged in anti-social activities on 05.04.2022 at 20.00 hours, by spraying pepper spray in the eyes of the police personnel and preventing them from discharging their official duties. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

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

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.06.2022, the investigation of the case is complete and the final report has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. He contended that the petitioner is a history sheeter. The petitioner is involved in 14 other crimes of different Police Stations in the State, for allegedly committing offences of similar nature. The proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short ‘KAPPA Act’). If the petitioner is released on bail, he would be menace to the society and it would send a wrong message. There is every likelihood of petitioner sabotaging the trial and also intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

6. The prosecution allegation is that on 05.04.2022 while the Police attached to the Ramapuram Police Station was conducting patrolling duty, they heard noise in the St. Augustine’s School at Ramapuram.

When they attempted to enter the school compound, the petitioner caught hold of them along with the other accused and sprayed pepper spray and prevented the police party from discharging their officials duties. 7. It is undisputed that the petitioner is an accused in the following cases:

1. Vakathanam P.S.Crime No.900/19 u/ss.341, 294 (b), 323, 324, 308, 427 r/w s.34 IPC.

2. 174/2020 of Ponkunnam P.S. u/s 279, 353, 328, 332 & 34 IPC.

3. 458/2020 of Pala P.S. u/s 379 & 34 IPC.

4. 876/2020 of Ramapuram P.S. u/s 379 IPC.

5. 1015/2020 of Manimala P.S. u/s 379 IPC.

6. 1755/2020 of Keezhavaipur P.S. u/s 380,461 &

34 IPC.

7. 42/2021 u/s 153,427 & 34 IPC Karukachal P.S.

8. 20/2021 of Manarcadu P.S. u/s 379 & 34 IPC.

9. 94/2021 of Ramapuram P.S. u/s 392 & 34 IPC.

10. 592/2021 of Nedumangadu P.S. u/s 379, 201 &

34 IPC.

11. Report u/s 107 crime of Ramapuram P.S.

12. 201/2022 of Thodupuzha P.S. u/s 379, 34 IPC.

13. 330/2022 of Mangalapuram P.S. u/s 294(b), 341, 324, 308 г/w 34 IPC.

14. 318/2022 of Chirayinkeezhu P.S. u/s 392 & 34 IPC.

It is also seen that the proceedings had been initiated under the KAPPA Act.

8. Although the petitioner had moved similar application before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pala by filing Crl.M.P. No.118/2023 in S.C. No.366/2023, by Annexure B order the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application, taking into account the gravity and seriousness of the crime and the fact that the petitioner is a history sheeter.

9. 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 fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document