Saju Vincent vs State Of Kerala & Ors.

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

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.947/2026 of Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 118(1) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant, infuriated by the de facto complainant having approached the police against him, on 05.09.2026 at about 6 p.m., blocked the de facto complainant and her husband, who were travelling on a bike, called out obscene words and, using his bicycle, struck down the de facto complainant and her husband. They fell down, and the applicant took out a beer bottle, smashed it against the bicycle and wielded the broken bottle at the husband's face, which the de facto complainant's husband blocked with his left hand, sustaining a deep injury to his left arm. The applicant further attempted to assault him with the broken bottle and, when the husband tried to ward off the attack, he sustained a deep injury to his face. When the de facto complainant tried to intervene, she was also attacked and, while attempting to evade the assault, sustained an injury to her eyebrow. The weapon was wielded in such a manner that, had the de facto complainant and her husband not successfully warded off the attack, the same would have caused their death. Thus, the applicant committed the above offences.

I have heard Sri.R. Nikhil, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri.R. Renjith, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and Smt.Aneeda Beegum, the learned Senior 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 counsel for the defacto complainant as well as the learned Senior 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 06.09.2026. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicant is very serious, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. Specific overt act has been attributed to the applicant. Annexure R3(g) would show that this Court granted police protection to the life of the de facto complainant from any illegal acts of the applicant. Moreover, the applicant has criminal antecedents, and he is a habitual offender. Considering the nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicant in it, and the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the applicant cannot be released on bail at this stage.

The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.