Kerala High Court
Aali Ahammad vs State Of Kerala on 14 September, 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
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 23RD BHADRA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.5642 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN Bail Appl. 5211/2020 DATED 21-08-2020 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
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, PIN-678544
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
SMT.SHEEBA.K.K., GP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.5642 of 2020 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.5642 of 2020
-------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2020
ORDER
This Bail Application is 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, Palakkad. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences 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.5642 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 conditions, if this Court grant him bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner inflicted serious injury to the de facto complainant and the wife of the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner inflicted serious injury on the back of the neck, scalp and fingers of his own wife. The counsel submitted that after the incident, the petitioner try to commit suicide.
7. After hearing both sides, I think this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail at this stage. After the incident, the petitioner try to commit suicide. It will be better for the petitioner and the victim if the petitioner is continued in detention. The petitioner inflicted very serious injuries to his own wife. The injuries were inflicted on vital B.A.No.5642 of 2020 4 parts of the body. The offence alleged against the petitioner includes the offence under Section 307 IPC. This Court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner as per order dated 21.8.2020 in B.A.No.5211 of 2020.
8. Considering the gravity of the offence, I think the petitioner is not entitled bail at this stage.
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;
B.A.No.5642 of 2020 5
(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;
(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