Dismissed

K.K.Vikas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2014Bail Appl./3220/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected a bail application filed by the accused seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court held investigation is not complete, the accused must be present for interrogation, and thus anticipatory bail is not appropriate. The accused was directed to surrender.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; accused directed to surrender to investigating officer.

K.K.Vikas Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3220 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO. 53/2014 OF CHEVAYUR POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

APPLICANT/ACCUSED :

¶8

K.K.VIKAS, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, NAMBONATHIL HOUSE, KURUVATTUR.P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS.SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. =================

¶16

B.A NO.3220 OF 2014

¶17

===================== Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2014

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the accused in Crime No.53 of 2014 Chevavur police station under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶20

The case of the prosecution nutshell was that the petitioner and the deceased were in love and after sometime he resiled from the promise to marry her and sent some messages to the victim through mobile phone which prompted her to commit suicide and thereby he had committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact she was abandoned by her relatives and it was at the instance of the petitioner that she has been made to live with her father and that also not helped her to have a happy life and he was about marry her and the dates were also fixed but in the meantime, without waiting for the period, she committed suicide and he has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the father of the deceased. Further according to the counsel, his presence is not required for investigation as well and custodial interrogation is not required in connection with the investigation.

¶22

On the other hand, the application was opposed by

¶23

B.A NO.3220 OF 2014 2

¶24

the Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is not over and the messages sent by the petitioner to the deceased just prior to the incident as resulted in the suicide committed by the deceased. Further since investigation is in the preliminary state his presence is also required for proper investigation. So granting bail according to the prosecutor will hinder the smooth investigation of the crime.

¶25

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the deceased were in love. It is also seen from the statements collected by the investigating officer through witnesses that the deceased was not in good terms with her relatives and she was in fact thrown away from the family circle and at that time the petitioner had come to the rescue her giving a hope that he will marry her and live as husband and wife. It is also seen from the materials collected that at the time when she committed suicide, she was residing with her father. Further it is seen from the materials collected and also the messages encoded that there were some unpleasant messages were passed on between the petitioner and the deceased and that according to the prosecution prompted her to commit suicide. So at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no part played by the accused and what is the role played by him and the circumstances under which the messages were sent etc are matters to be investigated for which the presence of the petitioner will be

¶26

¶27

B.A NO.3220 OF 2014

¶28

required. So there is some force in submission made by the learned Public prosecutor that it is not a fit case to invoke the power under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. He can very well surrender before the investigating officer and if the investigating officer on interrogation found that his arrest is required, then he can arrest and produce before the concerned Magistrate Court after interrogation and on such production, if an application for bail is filed in that Court, then that Court consider and disposes of the same on the date of filing of the application itself after hearing the Assistant Public prosecutor in accordance with law. So this Court feels that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and the application is liable to be rejected.

¶29

In the result the petition is rejected with the above observations and directions.

¶30

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶31

R.AV

K.K.Vikas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Vikas 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

V.Viajayan Vs P.P.Zainuddin

Akash Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

Prabhakar Boleyar Singh Vs the Director General of Police

Shaju Vs Prabhan

Eliyamma Vs the Forest Range Officer

Mohammed Rafi Vs Mohammed Naufal