ORDER

Dated this the 10th day of March, 2021 APPLICATION FOR REGULAR BAIL The applicant is the 2nd accused in Crime No.678 of

2020 of Ottapalam Police Station, Palakkad, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The final report has already been filed and the same is pending trial before the Additional Sessions Court, Ottapalam, as S.C.No.630/2020. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

2. On 31.05.2020, at about 10.00 PM, the applicant and the other accused allegedly attacked the defacto complainant due to prior enmity towards him for having made derogatory remarks about the second accused, who posted a material on his face book page and there was an altercation and scuffle. Subsequently, the defacto complainant's brother had also reached the scene of occurrence and both the brothers were attacked by the applicant and the other accused. The defacto complainant sustained some serious injuries. But, his brother sustained fatal injuries and the injuries got complicated and he died on 22.06.2020 due to Sepsis and the other complications resulting from the injuries he had received. The post mortem certificate findings indicate that “the deceased had died due to multi-organ dysfunction syndrome due to disseminated infection (Sepsis) originating from the infected sharp cut wounds inflicted on the left elbow and right knee. He also sustained IntraCranial Haemorrhage as a part of head injury which had contributed to fatal outcome”.

3. The specific allegation against the applicant is that he had attacked the deceased with an iron rod and inflicted an injury on his head. It was the other accused, who had inflicted the cut injuries with the sword on his elbow and right knee. The applicant states that the allegations are not true and that even if the prosecution case is believed, the applicant cannot be set to have inflicted any fatal injuries, since the deceased had died mainly due to Sepsis, which resulted from the infection of the wounds inflicted with sharp-edged weapons. The applicant was not wielding any sharp-edged weapon. The only allegation is that he had hit the deceased on his head with an iron rod. There was no fracture sustained to his skull. And, therefore, no fatal injuries could be set to have been implicated by the applicant. And, therefore, he seeks bail. He has been in custody since 03.06.2020 and has been in detention for the last 9 months.

And, therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted in the same manner stated in the application and has insisted on a bail being granted to the applicant because he is not the main perpetrator of the crime. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the post mortem report itself indicates that the IntraCranial Haemorrhage was caused as a part of head injury which contributed to the fatal outcome. The applicant is the person, who had inflicted the injuries on the head with an iron rod which caused IntraCranial Haemorrhage. True, there is no fracture sustained to the skull. But, IntraCranial injuries can also be fatal and that is what happened in the instant case. It just took about 22 days for the deceased to die. But, that will not in any way mitigate the crime committed by the applicant. The main dispute between the deceased and the applicant was due to political reasons. The applicant and the accused allegedly belonged to SDPI and the deceased belonged to RSS and it was due to the political rivalry that the crime was perpetrated.

Under such circumstances, in case the applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility of flaring up of the rivalries between the groups. And, hence, the applicant is to be tried in custody. The application is dismissed and I am sure that the trial court would take the trial to its logical conclus