AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1632 of 2020 of Chengannoor Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioner
alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC.
The prosecution case is that the accused due to previous enmity towards the de facto complainant, with intention to murder her and others, on
11.10.2020 attacked the father and mother of the de facto complainant with chopper. It is alleged that the injured sustained very serious injuries.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 17.10.2020. The counsel submitted that the incident is not happened as
alleged by the prosecution. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail.
The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor made available the wound certificate of the injured in this case
in which it is mentioned that the injured sustained serious injuries.
After hearing both sides, I think this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail at this stage. The allegations against the
petitioner are very serious. The injured sustained very serious injuries also.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner cannot be released on bail at this stage.
Moreover, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the well settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P
v Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2019 SC 5272). The apex court held that, the following factors are to the taken into consideration while
considering the application for bail.
(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;
(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;
(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;
(iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations.
It is true that there is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be decided on the basis of the facts and
circumstances of that case. In the light of the general principles laid down in the above judgment and considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail. Hence this Bail Application is dismissed.