MERSHID Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION FOR REGULAR BAIL

(2.) On 27.12.2019 at about 11.45 PM, the applicant along with the other co-accused, in furtherance of common intention, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted him with an iron rod, which he evaded. The iron rod fell on the car causing damage to the car and thereby the applicant committed mischief. Thereafter, the applicant and his friends also assaulted the defacto complainant. No serious injuries were caused. Had the assault with the iron rod sustained by the defacto complainant on his head, it could have proved fatal and thus the applicant along with the others attempted to commit culpable homicide.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for bail mainly on the ground that the applicant has 11 criminal antecedents against him, including an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that all the crimes except one which were pending against him including the crime under Section 302 IPC ended in acquittal and has been disposed of. There is only one other crime presently pending against him apart from the instant case. Hence, he may not be denied bail for the reason that he has got criminal antecedents. The learned Public Prosecutor has also pointed out that proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C were initiated against the applicant. Considering the notoriety of the applicant in getting involved in crimes frequently, he may not be released on bail is the argument advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor.