AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail.
The applicants are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.645/2026 of Vellarada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 126(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 118(1), 109, 324(4), 140(4) and 142 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The prosecution case, in short, is that due to prior enmity, in furtherance of their common object to commit murder of the defacto complainant and to kidnap him for committing murder, the applicants and the accused Nos. 5 and 6 on 02.09.2026 at 03.30 pm, at Kulamamkuzhi in Amboori village, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly. The accused then came in two cars and restrained the defacto complainant who was traveling in another car bearing registration No. KL 01 CU 0667 near Thekkupara. The accused persons then broke the glasses and windshield of the car using hatchet and iron levers. The applicant No.1 wielded the hatchet towards the head of the defacto complainant and injury was inflicted near the right ear of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the applicant No.1 once again inflicted injury over the right ear of the defacto complainant using the hatchet. The applicant Nos. 2 to 4 and the accused Nos. 5 and 6 manhandled and beat him using iron rods. The applicant No.1 then dragged him out of the vehicle and inflicted an incised wound in the right foot of the defacto complainant using the hatchet. Thereafter the accused persons kidnapped the defacto complainant in their Audi car. The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 manhandled the defacto complainant while he was in the car and the applicants thereby committed the offences.
I have heard Sri. V.A. Vinod, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri. G. Ranju Mohan, the learned counsel for the additional respondent No.3 and Smt. Aneeda Beegum, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to bail. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the additional respondent No.3 submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and they are not entitled to bail at this stage.
The applicants were remanded to judicial custody on 03.09.2026. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicants is very serious, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on their part. Specific overt act has been attributed against the applicants. Moreover, the applicants have criminal antecedents. Considering the nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence, the complicity of the applicants in it, and the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the applicants cannot be released on bail at this stage. The bail application, accordingly, is dismissed.