SHAMON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in B.A.No.6026 of 2020 is the 6th accused, the applicant in B.A.No.6029 of 2020 is the 2nd accused, while the applicant in B.A.No.6103 of 2020 is the 5th accused in Crime No.1386 of 2020 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is thus:

(2.) On 18.08.2020 at about 10.15 PM, accused 1 to 3, reached Koyikkappady on a motorcycle, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and thereafter the 1st accused took out a sword and inflicted a cut injury on the left side of the head of the defacto complainant causing a fracture injury. The defacto complainant also had in the process sustained a cut injury on his left wrist, while preventing further blow from the 1st accused. The applicants (A5 and A6) also abetted accused 1 to 3 to commit the offence and when the defacto complainant fell down, they all manhandled him and thus in the prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly of which they were all members, committed the offence of attempted murder of the defacto complainant. The applicants would contend that they are innocent and the allegations are not true and that they have been falsely foisted because there were some previous crimes against them. Moreover, accused 6, 2 and 5 have been arrested on 24.08.2020, 21.08.2020 and 26.08.2020 respectively. They have been in custody for a fairly long time. Custodial interrogation is over and the recovery is also complete. And, therefore, there is no point in holding the applicants in judicial custody for any longer.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutors. The learned Public Prosecutors vehemently opposed the applications for bail mainly on the ground that the applicants have all got criminal antecedents against them. The 6th accused has three crimes against him including offences under Sections 326 and 308 IPC, whereas accused 2 and 5 have 12 crimes against each of them, for offences punishable under Sections 308, 307, 304 IPC, and similar offences of grave nature. It is also pointed out that proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C and KAAPA have been initiated against A2 and A5. Considering the background of the applicants, it is submitted that they may not be granted bail. In answer to that, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that accused Nos. 4, 7 and 8 were already granted regular bail from this Court, despite their also having criminal antecedents. This Court had observed that despite their having criminal antecedents, considering the pandemic situation, their detention was not necessary and therefore, they were granted bail.