Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 49305
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK MENON, J
ADHARSH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./484/2021
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)
Bail may be denied based on an applicant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offence to protect public safety.
Headnote:
Bail - Offences - Cr.P.C Section 439 - Court dismissed bail application citing history of serious criminal activities and likelihood of reoffending.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, accused of serious offences including attempted murder, sought bail, claiming innocence and cooperation with the investigation. The prosecution argued against bail based on the applicant's criminal history.
Finding of the Court:
The court highlighted the applicant's extensive criminal record, including multiple serious charges, indicating a high risk of reoffending or absconding if released on bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering his criminal history and the nature of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a history of serious criminal offences justified the denial of bail to prevent potential reoffending and ensure public safety.
Final Decision: The application for bail is dismissed.
O R D E R
Dated this the 1st day of February 2021 Application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
The applicant is the 1st accused in Crime No.2493/2020 of Eravipuram Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 324, 506(ii)
and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.09.2020 at about 7 p.m., the applicant in furtherance of common intention with the other accused wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant at a place near Mulluvila S.N.Public School and attacked him by means of dangerous weapon like a chopper and caused cut injuries on his head and thus attempted to commit murder. The injured has seven lacerated injuries on his body. The applicant was arrested in connection with a crime of Kottiyam Police Station and his formal arrest in this crime was recorded on 23.12.2020. 3. The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. He is willing to cooperate with the investigation. The investigation is almost complete and there is no point in incarcerate him any further.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the applicant is a notorious criminal, a history-sheeter and has sixteen crimes registered against him out of which five are under the NDPS Act. KAPPA proceedings were initiated against him earlier and after five year elapsed once again proceedings under KAPPA has been initiated against him. In case the applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility that he may get involved in offences of similar nature and also there is possibility of his absconding. Therefore, the application for bail is vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
After having heard both sides, I find that the applicant is a history-sheeter with more than a dozen crimes registered against him for very grave offences including 307 and under the NDPS Act. Under the circumstances, the applicant cannot be released on bail. The final report has already been filed and I am sure that the trial court would take the trial to its logical conclusion at the earliest, despite the restrictions in the pandemic situation. Hence, the application for bail is dismissed.
