Prakash.V @ Kottaram Prakash vs State Of Kerala

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail.

The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.761/2026 of Thiruvallam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 126(2), 324(2) and 109 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case, in short, is as follows:- In relation to a police case filed by the defacto complainant against the applicant for misbehaving towards his minor daughter, and on account of the defacto complainant's wife posting a WhatsApp status regarding this, the applicant and the accused No.2, in furtherance of their common intention to kill the defacto complainant and his wife, on 03.07.2026 at 10.15 p.m. in front of the Keezhoor Kottaram house where the applicant and the accused No.2 were residing, wrongfully restrained the FZ bike on which the defacto complainant and his wife were traveling. The applicant jumped in front of the bike with an iron pipe, obstructed them, uttered obscene words against the defacto complainant, threatened to kill him and caused hurt to him by hitting on his head with a square pipe, causing injury. He struck him again on the head, causing injury, and upon the defacto complainant falling to the road, the applicant struck him on his back with the square pipe, causing injury, and also hit and damaged the defacto complainant's FZ bike which was lying on the road. The accused No.2 attacked the defacto complainant's wife on her right forearm, right shoulder and behind her right knee, causing injury, thereby attempting to commit murder. Thus, the applicant committed the aforementioned offences.

I have heard Sri.L.Rajesh Narayan, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 04.07.2026. The investigation is over and the final report has already been filed. It is true that the applicant has criminal antecedents. However, considering the period of detention already undergone by the applicant and also the fact that the final report has already been filed, I am of the view that the applicant can be granted bail. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -