Allowed

Vishnulal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1820/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 365 and 368 IPC read with Section 34, the court allowed the petition, deeming the allegations serious but noting a passive role, and granted bail subject to seven strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on conditions including surrender by 19.03.2013, weekly reporting, staying outside Kerala without permission, surrendering passport, and no interference with evidence or witnesses.

Vishnulal Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/23RD PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1820 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 221/2013 OF MUHAMMA POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED:

¶8

VISHNULAL, AGED 20 YEARS S/O BAIJU, MANNATH PUTHEN VEEDU, PULLIKKANAKKU MURI KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.RANJIT BABU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORNAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.RASHEED

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

tss

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

Bail Application No.1820 OF 2013

¶17

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2013.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is 3^rd accused in Crime No.221/2013 of

¶20

Noornad Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 368 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has aided another person to kidnap the de facto complainant and to keep her in custody for some time.

¶21

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. The allegation that in the house which he had taken on rent the de facto complainant was kept for a while is not correct. It is pointed out that the de facto complainant and the 1^st accused were in love and they decided to elope. When they were together, the Police patrolling the area came across them and then the de facto complainant changed her stand The petitioner claims that he is totally innocent and therefore, seeks for pre-arrest bail.

¶22

B.A.No.1820/2013

¶23

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the allegations are serious in nature.

¶25

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, the allegation against the petitioner seems to be that he had kidnapped the victim. Of course, there is a role attributed to him.

¶26

Considering the nature of the allegations and also the fact that he has only a passive role to play, it is felt that this is a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶27

i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 19.03.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall release him on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned.

¶28

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the

¶29

B.A.No.1820/2013

¶30

¶31

sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by him.

¶32

iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders.

¶33

iv) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the Magistrate Court concerned.

¶34

v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned and if does not possess a valid passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the Magistrate court concerned.

¶35

vi) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.

¶36

vii) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶37

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶38

smp

Vishnulal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnulal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saji P. Daniel Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hammeed K. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Mayyil Police Station

Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala

Reena Joseph Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Nazila Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Mukundan Vs State of Kerala