Allowed

Vishnu C.C. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jul 2016Bail Appl./4782/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The court observed that investigation was practically over and custodial interrogation was not necessary. The petitioners were released subject to reporting conditions and local bail restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail subject to executing a bond with two sureties for ₹30,000/- each, reporting every Wednesday for two months, and not leaving the local area.

Vishnu C.C. 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 P.UBAID

¶4

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

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4782 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.1262/2016 OF FORT POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶8

1. VISHNU C.C., S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 26 YEARS, 28/456/1, THAIVILAKATHU HOUSE,SREEKANDESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. SAJIDARSH B.S., S/O.SUDERSAN, AGED 36 YEARS, 21/397, DARSANA, VANDITHADAM, VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

3. DIPULAL.U.S., S/O.SASI, AGED 24 YEARS, 21/375, DEEPA BHAVAN, VANDITHADAM, VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

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

¶14

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R

¶16

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

¶17

mbr/

¶18

P.UBAID, J.

¶19

============================ B.A.No.4782 of 2016

¶20

============================ Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail under

¶23

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the

¶24

apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.1262 of 2016 of the Fort Police Station, registered under Sections 294(b),341, 323 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are three accused in the crime.

¶25

On a perusal of the complaint in this case, I

¶26

find that scope for a prosecution under Section 354 IPC is really doubtful. It is well settled that a mere assault on a woman will not by itself come under Section 354 IPC. For such a prosecution, something more by way of sexual intent is required. On a reading of the complaint, I find that the allegation is prominently that the complainant was assaulted by the petitioners herein. It appears that there is some other dispute between them. There is also a counter

¶27

B.A.No.4782 of 2016 2

¶28

case against the complainant and others, registered by the police as Crime No.1256 of 2016.

¶29

This application for pre arrest bail is opposed

¶30

by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused are now released, they will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶31

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary and the report of the Investigating Officer, I find that investigation in the crime is practically over, and that the petitioners can be granted pre arrest bail. I find that the investigating officer has already questioned the material witnesses. In the nature of the allegations, and also the nature of the materials required for prosecution, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. I find that the police has gone a long way with investigation, and has already collected necessary materials. I do not find the

¶32

B.A.No.4782 of 2016 3

¶33

necessity of detention of the petitioners in custody for the purpose of investigation in the above circumstances. It will suffice that the petitioners are directed to report before the investigating officer periodically. However, some other conditions are also felt necessary for bail.

¶34

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only)each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate, or the learned Special Judge having jurisdiction, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.1262 of 2016 of the Fort Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶35

a) The petitioners shall report before

¶36

the investigating officer between 10 a.m. and 11 am on all Wednesdays for a period of two months.

¶37

b) The petitioners shall not leave the limits of the Fort Police Station for a period of two months.

¶38

B.A.No.4782 of 2016 4

¶39

c) The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

Sd/-

P.UBAID, JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Vishnu C.C. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu C.C. 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

Akhil K.S. Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Mujeeb Vs State of Kerala

Paulson K.V. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vs the State of Kerala

Riyas Vs State of Kerala