Allowed

Vinesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2018Bail Appl./1038/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to two accused persons charged under bail applications. Bail was allowed subject to a direction to deposit Rs. 10,000 each as a condition precedent, cooperation with investigation, and specific behavioral conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000 each and compliance with standard bail conditions including cooperation with investigation.

Vinesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1038 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 2270/2017 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 6 & 7

¶8

1 VINESH KUMAR, S/O. NESAMANI, AGED 30 YEARS,RESIDING AT POTTU PANAMOODU VEEDU, CHERUVARAKONAM, PARASSALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2 SHAJAN. S.K., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. SELVAMANI, MEHTANVILA VEEDU, KADUVAKUZHI, ADAKUNNUKUZHI P.O., KULAPURAM VILLAGE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.R.GOPAN SRI.D.JAI SINGH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 001.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

IAP

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶18

B.A.No.1038 of 2018

¶19

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

2.The petitioners are the accused Nos. 6 and 7 in Crime No.2270 of 2017 of the Parassala Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 149, 294(b), 353 of the IPC and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Properties Act.

¶23

3.The informant is a police driver attached to the Neyyattinkara Police Station. It appears that directions were issued from the Control Room to rush to Parassala to quell the violence which was reported there involving a group of people and the police personnel. After the issue had settled down, while the informant was returning back about 50 persons led by accused Nos. 1 to 3 who are named in the FIR are alleged to have confined the police personnel and some of the accused

¶24

B.A.Nos.1038 of 2018 2

¶25

are alleged to have thrown bricks and cement blocks at the police jeep and caused destruction. Loss to the tune of Rs.35,000/- was caused.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are without basis. A minor incident involving the Sub Inspector of Parassala was blown beyond proportion and a tensed situation was caused. Some of the people had entered the CSI Church and the police followed them. Several complaints were filed against the high handedness of the police and reference is made to Annexure-C and D. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not even present at the place of occurrence and the names of the petitioners do not find a place in the earliest records. Much later, a report was submitted arraying the petitioners as the accused. It is further submitted that two other Crimes were registered on the same day as Crime No.2271 of 2017 and 2269 of 2017. In the instant Crime, this Court had occasion to consider the Bail Application filed by the 3^rd accused, who was named in the FIR, and by order dated 6.3.2018 had granted anticipatory bail holding that custodial interrogation is

¶27

B.A.Nos.1038 of 2018 3

¶28

uncalled for.

¶29

5.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is pointed out that though the names of the petitioners did not find a place in the earliest records, investigation revealed their complicity. It is also submitted that loss to the tune of Rs.35,000/- was caused.

¶30

6.I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶31

7.It appears that on the same day, three Crimes were registered at the Parassala Police Station. This was consequent to an incident which occurred in the premises of a Church. Records would reveal that a large mob of persons had assembled and had caused damages. The records do not reveal that the police personnel had sustained any injuries. The report incorporating the names of the petitioners were submitted much later. Furthermore, the 3^rd accused has been granted bail by this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners does not appear to be necessitous in the instant case. However, in view of the reported damage of the police jeep, which fact is substantiated by the contemporaneous mahazar, there shall

¶32

B.A.Nos.1038 of 2018 4

¶33

be a direction to the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- each as a condition precedent for their enlargement on bail.

¶34

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/(Rupees forty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶35

(i) The petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- each before the jurisdictional court within three days of their enlargement on bail. The jurisdictional court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders for its disposal at the conclusion of the trial or at the appropriate stage.

¶36

(ii)The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of three months or till the final report is filed whichever is earlier. Thereafter, they shall

¶37

B.A.Nos.1038 of 2018 5

¶38

appear as and when directed.

¶39

iii)The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶40

iv)The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶41

v) If the petitioners intend to leave the country, they shall obtain previous permission from the court having jurisdiction.

¶42

In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶43

the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶46

IAP //True Copy \

¶47

P.A to Judge

Vinesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinesh Kumar 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

Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar I.K Vs the Station House Officer

Kannan @ Kunhikannan Vs the State of Kerala

Vysakh S Vs State of Kerala

Vinesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Vinesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Arif Assainar Vs the State of Kerala