Allowed

Vineeth v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jul 2016Bail Appl./4448/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by Vineeth, the 5th accused in a criminal prosecution for offences related to a altercation at a bar. The court imposed several conditions for the grant of bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted upon executing a bond for Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties each for Rs. 25,000, subject to conditions of appearance, interrogation, and cooperation with investigation.

Vineeth Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2016/29TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4448 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 2106/2014 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, TRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.5:

¶8

VINEETH

¶9

AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.VENUGOPAL, KARUMATHIL HOUSE, KONGANOOR DESOM, AKKIKKAVU, THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR-680 519.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.V.C.SARATH

¶11

SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED VICTIM :

¶13

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

¶14

2. FAISAL AGED 24 YEARS/2016 S/O.MARIAKUTTY, KALLAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.ERAVAKKAD, PALAKKAD.

¶15

3. SHINOJ V.P., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VELLANATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, KOLLANNUR, MEKKAD DESOM, KOONAMMOOCHI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-07-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶20

¶21

B.A. No. 4448 of 2016

¶22

- - - - Dated 20^th July, 2016

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, who is the 5^th accused in Crime No.2106 of 2014 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. He along with others are alleged to have committed offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 325 and 307 read with section 149 of the IPC.

¶26

2.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that on 7.9.2014 at about 10 p.m. the de facto complainant and his friends went to the KR bar at Perumbilavu and after consuming alcohol refused to pay the bill. They were restrained by the employees of the bar, who were also arrayed as the accused. Some altercation took place between the de facto complainant and his friends on one side and the employees of the bar on the other side. Being aggrieved, the de facto complainant and his friends caused damage to the motor bike of the 4^th accused and also the car of the 6^th accused. Thereafter accused Nos.1 to 6 and

¶27

B.A. No.4448 of 2016 -2-

¶28

11 and 12 are alleged to have assaulted the de facto complainant causing injuries.

¶29

3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the records.

¶30

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the order passed by this Court in B.A.No.4447 of 2016 dated 30.6.2016 concerning accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 contends that the learned Single Judge had taken note of a settlement which was arrived at between accused and de facto complainant. The prayer is that the petitioner herein stands in the same footing and relief be granted to him as well.

¶31

5.It appears that the petitioner herein who is arrayed as the 5^th accused stands in the same footing as accused 2, 3 and 6 in B.A.No.4447 of 2016. I do not find any reason as to why the prayer sought for is to be refused. In the said facts and circumstances, following order is passed:

¶32

i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days of this order. On such appearance, the Investigating

¶33

B.A. No.4448 of 2016

¶34

-3-

¶35

Officer is at liberty to interrogate the petitioner. After interrogation, if the police officer feels that this is a case where arrest is necessary, he is at liberty to arrest the petitioner. After arrest, if any recovery is necessary that also can be made. Thereafter the petitioner shall be released on bail on the petitioner executes a bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. After release on bail, the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays in between 10.00 am and 12.00 noon for a period of two months.

¶36

ii. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the bail period.

¶37

iii. The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses.

¶38

iv. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶39

B.A. No.4448 of 2016

¶40

-4-

¶41

On the above conditions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed. Violation of any of the conditions will entail cancellation

¶42

of bail.

¶43

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.,

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

kp/-20.7.16

Vineeth v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineeth 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

Kochucherukkan Vs State of Kerala

Santhoshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Ummer Farooque Vs State of Kerala

Sathya Stephen Vs the State of Kerala

K.P. Abdul Jabbar Vs State of Kerala

Sajid K.R. Vs State of Kerala