Nibin vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The applicant is the 1st accused in Crime No.1096 of 2020 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur, for having allegedly committed offences punishable

under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307, 294(b) and 506 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act as also under Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2016. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

On 10.09.2020 at about 4.30 PM, the applicant, wrongfully restrained the son of the defacto complainant named Vishal, owing to the previous

enmity towards him and allegedly attacked him with the sword, with a specific intention to commit murder and thus attempted to commit murder by

causing grievous injuries on him. He was attacked with a sword which was defended by him, as a result of which, he sustained a fracture of his right

hand. The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true and that he may be granted bail since he has been in custody from

10.09.2020 onwards.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the

applicant is a convict for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC by the Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda in S.C.No.773 of 2014.

He has 19 criminal cases against him. Being a person with criminal antecedents, he may not be granted bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

On hearing the submissions made on both sides, I find that the applicant is definitely not entitled to bail in this case because he has inflicted grievous

injuries on the defacto complainant's son with a dangerous weapon like a sword and he is a person having criminal antecedents. And, therefore,

applying the parameters set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another [2010 KHC 4835: AIR

2011 SC 274], the applicant is definitely not entitled to bail in this crime.

The application for bail is therefore dismissed.