The court grants bail based on the progress of investigation and absence of injuries while noting the serious nature of the allegations.

ORDER

This petition seeking regular bail has been filed by the second accused in Crime No.1263/2025 of Vadakkancherry Police Station, registered, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 191(2), 191(3), 109, 121(1) r/w 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ) and Section 3 (2)(e) of Prevention of Damage to Pubilc Property Act, 1984 (PDPP Act).

2. The prosecution alleges that on 01.11.2025, between 01.06 a.m. and 01.11 a.m., while the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadakkancherry, was conducting night patrol duty along with the accompanying Civil Police Officer (CPO), they noticed an Eicher lorry bearing Registration No. UP-15-HT-7271, which was suspected to be involved in a case registered in connection with the theft of diesel from other lorries parked along the Palakkad–Thrissur National Highway, proceeding from the Palakkad side and passing in front of the police jeep. Upon noticing the said vehicle, the Sub-Inspector of Police, along with the CPO, who was on driver duty, chased the lorry in the official police jeep and, after overtaking it, signalled the driver to stop. However, the first accused, who was driving the lorry at the relevant time, intentionally rammed the lorry into the rear of the police jeep, thereby attempting to murder the police officials and using criminal force to deter them from the discharge of their official duties. By the said act, the accused caused damage to the police jeep, a public property, to the tune of ₹1,00,000/-, and thereby committed the offences mentioned above.

3. I heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides and perused the available records.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner, who is arrayed as the second accused in this case, is absolutely false. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was only a passenger in the lorry, having no control over the vehicle, and therefore, he cannot be fastened with any criminal liability with respect to the alleged incident. The learned counsel further urged that the investigation in this case is practically over, and hence, further judicial incarceration of the petitioner is unwarranted and will serve no purpose.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by highlighting the serious nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner.

6. The allegation that the first accused, a driver of a lorry, purposefully dashed against a police jeep and attempted to commit murder of police officers engaged in public duty cannot be viewed lightly. The prosecution allegation itself suggests that the incident occurred in this case was not a pre-planned one. Anyhow, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was the first accused, who was driving the lorry at the relevant time. Moreover, the question whether the second accused, who was admittedly a passenger in the said lorry, was sharing any common intention with the first accused, is a matter of evidence, which can be religated to be considered at the time of trial.

7. As evident from the records, the petitioner was arrested in this case on 01.11.2025, and since then, he has been under judicial custody. Although there is an allegation that damage to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- has been sustained to the police jeep, fortunately, no injuries have been sustained to the police officials. Although the same is not a reason to justify the criminal act, the same can also be taken into consideration while considering the present bail application. As already stated, from 01.11.2025 onwards, the petitioner is in custody, and the investigation in this case appears to have progressed substantially. The lorry involved in this c