Kerala High Court
Aali Ahammad vs State Of Kerala on 21 August, 2020
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.5211 OF 2020
CRIME NO.660/2020 OF Alathur Police Station , Palakkad
PETITIONER:
AALI AHAMMAD
AGED 47 YEARS
SON OF ABDUL RAHIMAN, CHERUKUTTY, KOMATHUPARAMBU,
VAVULLYAPURAM, THONIPPADAM, TARUR-II VILLAGE, ALTHUR,
PALAKKAD.
678544
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031
SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR.GP.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.5211 of 2020 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.5211 of 2020
-------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2020
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.660 of 2020 of Alathur Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324 & 309 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused who is the father of the de facto complainant failed to give maintenance amount to her family for the last six years. Thereafter, the mother of the de facto complainant filed a case before the Family Court, Palakkad. Because of that enmity on 2.7.2020 at 4.45 p.m the accused with intention to commit murder, chopped on the backside of neck, head and hand of her mother and the left wrist of the de facto complainant using chopper. B.A.No.5211 of 2020 3 Thereafter the petitioner attempted to commit suicide.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 15.7.2020 onwards. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition, if this Court grant him bail. The counsel submitted that there is some matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife. The incident is not happened as alleged by the prosecution.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that serious injuries are sustained to the mother and daughter.
7. After hearing both sides, I think this is not a fit case in which orders u/s.439 Cr.P.C can be passed at this stage. Very serious injuries are sustained to the mother of the de facto complainant and to the de facto complainant.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail at this stage.
B.A.No.5211 of 2020 4
9. 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;B.A.No.5211 of 2020 5
(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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE cms