Allowed

Vincent v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2016Bail Appl./4812/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of five accused persons charged with bomb manufacturing and related offenses. The court found that investigation was practically over and discharged them on regular bail subject to undertaking bonds and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioners on bail with a bond of Rs. 50,000 each from two sureties, subject to reporting to police, territorial restriction, no contact with witnesses and not committing offenses under Ex

Vincent Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2016/24TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4812 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 902/2016 OF KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1, 2, 3 & 5 :

¶8

1. VINCENT

¶9

S/O. VARGHESE PATHROSE, AGED 28 YEARS, THERUVIL THYVILAKOM VEEDU, NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL, PUTHUKURICHI, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. VIMAL VARGHESE

¶11

S/O. VARGHESE PATHROSE, AGED 26 YEARS, THERUVIL THYVILAKOM VEEDU, NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL, PUTHUKURICHI, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

3. PRVEEN @ JAMES S/O. FREDDY, AGED 28 YEARS, ARTHIYIL PURAYIDOM VEEDU, NEAR AMMA ICE PLANT, MARYANADU, PUTHUKURICHI, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4. AMEER

¶14

S/O. SAKEER HUSSAIN, AGED 26 YEARS, AMEENA MANZIL, POUNDAKADAVU, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶16

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-07-2016, ALONG WITH BA NO. 5140/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

P.UBAID, J.

¶23

---------------------------------------

¶24

B.A Nos.4812 & 5140 of 2016

¶25

---------------------------------------

¶26

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The petitioners in B.A No.4812/2016 are the accused Nos.1,2,3 and 5 in Crime No.902/2016 of the Kazhakuttam Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 286 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the petitioner in B.A No.5140/2016 is the fourth accused in the said crime. All these petitioners have been in judicial custody since 3.6.2016. When the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 seek regular bail for the first time, the fourth accused seeks regular bail for the second time. His first application was dismissed by this Court on 30.6.2016.

¶29

A bomb explosion caused at the manufacturing site, is the subject matter of this prosecution. The said explosion happened at about 5.30 pm on 1.6.2016 at Kinfra Junction, at Menamkulam village. One person sustained severe burn injuries in the said explosion. He is the 6^th accused in this crime. The

¶30

B.A Nos.4812 & 5140 of 2016 2

¶31

other accused are the persons for whom the 6^th accused manufactured the bomb that explored, and they were also at the site when the explosion occurred. The 6^th accused was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment, and he was remanded to judicial custody at the hospital, by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. No doubt, these petitioners and the 6^th accused manufactured bomb for some unlawful object. The person who sustained burn injuries is not before this Court as petitioner. The prosecution records reveal that the petitioners were clearly identified at the site by the police officers. When the 6^th accused sustained severe injuries, the others ran off and escaped from the spot.

¶32

This application for regular bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused is now released, they will definitely obstruct the investigation.

¶33

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 this case is practically over, and that the petitioners can be now released on appropriate conditions. I find that the Investigating Officer has already questioned the material witnesses, and has collected the

¶34

¶35

B.A Nos.4812 & 5140 of 2016

¶36

necessary materials for a prosecution. I do not find the necessity of continued detention of the petitioners in custody. However, some reasonable conditions for bail are felt necessary in the particular facts and circumstances.

¶37

In the result, this application for bail is allowed. The petitioners will be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand₹ only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶38

a. The petitioners shall report before the Circle Inspector of Police, Attingal between 10 am and 11 am on all Thursdays for a period of two months.

¶39

b. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of Kazhakuttom Police Station for two months.

¶40

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

¶41

d. The petitioners shall not involve in any offence under the Explosive Substances Act till trial of the case is over.

¶42

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE

¶43

//True Copy//

¶44

¶45

P.A to Judge

Vincent v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincent 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

Subair Kallekkekkal Vs the Administrator

Mohammed Hadil Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Babu M.S. Vs State of Kerala

Shibin Vs State of Kerala

Akil.v.Raj Vs the Station House Officer, Balaramapuram Police Station

Anil Kumar Vs Station House Officer