Allowed

Vinu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Sept 2014Bail Appl./6489/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to a social activist accused of assaulting a woman, noting the weapon was seized. Bail was allowed on strict conditions including weekly reporting, passport surrender, and restrictions on influencing witnesses, referencing a prior judgment on passport release.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail upon arrest, executing a bond of Rs. 35,000 with two sureties for one lakh each, subject to strict reporting and conduct conditions.

Vinu Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/26TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6489 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO.1104/2014 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION,KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

VINU,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI,VALIYAVILA KIZHAKKATHIL,ATTUVASSERRY MURI,KULAKKADA,KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHOOR POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DISTRICT-691516

¶13

*ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IMPLEADED

¶14

3. PRASANNA KUMARI,AGED 45 YEARS,W/O.BABUKUTTY, SHARON VILLA,ATTUVASSERY MURI,KULAKKADA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.9.2014 IN CRL.MA NO.8373/2014.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN ADDL.R3 BY ADV.SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

V.K.MOHANAN, J

¶20

===========================

¶21

B.A No.6489 of 2014

¶22

============================

¶23

Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2014

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1104/2014 of Puthoor Police Station and as he is apprehending arrest in the above crime, he preffered this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶26

The prosecution allegation is that at about 11 a.m on 15.08.2014 the accused with an intention to attack the de facto complainant trespassed into the kitchen of the de facto complainant's house and thereafter he abused her in filthy language and caught hold of the hair of the de facto complainant and she was beaten with a wooden reaper and inflicted injuries on her body. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 294(b) and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the additional third respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

B.A No.6489 of 2014

¶29

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner is a social activist and as he had questioned the illegal and illicit business of the son of the de facto complainant's sister, he is implicated in the above crime. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the de facto complainant, S.C No.859/2006 is pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Kottarakara. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the alleged wooden reaper said to have used for inflicting injury on the de facto complainant has already been seized by the police, the custody of the petitioner is not required.

¶31

The learned counsel for the additional third respondent submitted that the petitioner is a neighbour of the de facto complainant and any time he is likely to repeat the offence and therefore, it is not proper to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶32

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that though initially Section 452 of Indian Penal Code was incorporated in the crime, later, the same was deleted and Section 447 of Indian Penal Code was incorporated. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the police during the investigation has already recovered the wooden reaper alleged to have used by the petitioner to beat the de facto complainant and produced the same before the court.

¶33

B.A No.6489 of 2014

¶34

¶35

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, according to me, the custody of the petitioner for the investigation purpose is not warranted particularly when the wooden reaper used by the petitioner has already been seized. However, since the allegation against the petitioner is serious, with stringent conditions this petition can be allowed.

¶36

In the result, this petition is allowed and accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.1104/2014 of Puthoor Police Station, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the above crime and on the following other conditions:

¶37

i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in the above crime once in a week on Saturday between 10 a.m and 11 a.m.

¶38

ii) Petitioner is directed to surrender his passport, if any, before the Investigating Officer, at the time of executing the bail bond and if he is not a passport holder, file an affidavit to that effect and the Investigating Officer is directed to produce the passport, if he is having the same,

¶39

B.A No.6489 of 2014

¶40

¶41

or the affidavit as afore mentioned, as the case may be, before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner is free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for the release of the passport as and when required and in case an application is filed in this regard, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same on merit and pass appropriate orders, guided by the decision rendered by this Court in Ashok Kumar v State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 712).

¶42

iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and try to influence any witnesses.

¶43

iv) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation.

¶44

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶45

vdv

Vinu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anoop Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Zakariya P. @ Jakki Vs State of Kerala

Sijo Mathai Vs State of Kerala

C.K. Abdul Rahiman Sha Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Kumar Vs the S.I of Police

Vinod @ Kallappan Vs the State of Kerala