Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40108
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK MENON, J
PRADEEP – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./2391/2021
SRI.PRATHEESH.P, SMT.S.SEETHA, SHRI.AMAR PRASANTH G, SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
Previous convictions and the severity of allegations against a defendant can influence the court's decision to deny anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - IPC Sections 294(b), 341, 324, 308, 506, 34 - The court evaluated the seriousness of the allegations, including the applicant's past criminal history, and determined that anticipatory bail was not justified.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant is accused of being part of an assault on the defacto complainant, causing potentially fatal injuries using dangerous weapons, amidst prior enmity. The applicant denied involvement and sought pre-arrest bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the applicant's previous conviction and assessed the severity of the current allegations, concluding that he was the main perpetrator and thus, anticipatory bail was not warranted.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail given the seriousness of the charges and his past criminal conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the charges and the applicant's criminal background justified the denial of anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: Anticipatory bail application denied; applicant ordered to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks.
ORDER
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2021 APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL The applicant is the first accused in Crime No.2942 of
2020 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 341, 324, 308 & 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act .
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.12.2020, the applicant in furtherance of common intention with the rest of the accused, due to the previous enmity towards the defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained him and thereafter assaulted him with dangerous weapons like knife, sword and metal pieces with a knowledge that their assault will cause the defacto complainant's death. The applicant holding a sword, attacked the defacto complainant on his scalp causing a lacerating injury on his scalp, which could have proved fatal and thus committed the offence of culpable homicide.
3. The applicant says that he is innocent and the allegations are not true, rest of the accused had been arrested and the weapons have already been recovered and therefore, the applicant need not be subjected to custodial interrogation.
Hence the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the applicant is the main perpetrator of the crime for having caused an injury with a weapon like a sword on the head of the defacto complainant. Moreover, the applicant is a former convict for having been committed an offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC . Therefore, he is not entitled to discretionary and extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
5. After having heard the submissions of both sides, I find that considering the antecedents of the applicant and the fact that he is the main perpetrator of the crime, he is not entitled to the discretionary and extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. The application is therefore disposed of with a direction to the applicant to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. In the event of his arrest, after interrogation, he shall be produced before the Jurisdictional Court, where he can apply for regular bail. The Jurisdictional Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the regular bail preferably on the same day.
