News Published on :
Kerala: The Kerala High Court recently held that mere out-of-court settlement of a case between the accused and the victims is not a ground to grant bail to a person charged for attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Nishad H v State of Kerala].
Justice A Badharudeen held so, pointing out that if other witnesses depose (testify) at the time of evidence in support of the prosecution, it is possible that the accused may still be convicted and sentenced.
“Merely because the injured persons submitted that they have settled the matter, that by itself is not a reason to grant bail to the accused in a crime involving offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, since the other witnesses if depose at the time of evidence in support of the prosecution, conviction and sentence are possible,” the order said.
It was also pointed out that such crimes have an impact on not only the victim but also the society as a whole.
“The criminal proceedings for the offence under S.307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc., which have a serious impact on the society, cannot be quashed in exercise of the powers under S.482 of the Cr.P.C, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves,” the Court said.
The Court was considering a bail application filed by a person who was charged with committing offenses punishable under Sections 294(b) (obscene acts and songs), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 307 (attempt to murder), read with 34 (persons committed an offense with the same intention) of IPC.
The prosecution case was that the petitioner, along with another accused, assaulted a man against whom they had some animosity, with the intention to murder him.
The man was brutally manhandled by both the accused persons and sustained multiple injuries but managed to survive.
The counsel for the petitioner pointed out the petitioner has been in custody for over a month and that the man who was attacked has filed an affidavit stating that the entire dispute has been settled and they have no intention to proceed with the prosecution.
However, the public prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of bail highlighting the antecedents of the petitioner and also the serious injuries inflicted by him on the victim.
Regarding the contention raised by the petitioner’s counsel that the matter has been settled between the parties, after referring to various precedents, the Court noted that an offence under Section 307 of IPC cannot be settled acting on the recitals from the affidavit that the matter has been settled.
“Mere plea of settlement of crime alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC by itself is not a ground to grant bail also and grant of bail shall be subject to the merits of the matter, inclusive of antecedents of the petitioner”, the Court held.
Considering the above position of law and taking note of the various antecedents of the petitioner, the Court dismissed his bail application.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Harikrishnan MS, Shakthi Prakash, and K Dhruv Kumar.
The respondents were represented by advocates Vishnu Vijayan (Public Prosecutor) and TV Neema (Senior Public Prosecutor).
