Allowed

Vinesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2018Bail Appl./1039/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to two accused persons in a case involving obstruction of police and breach of peace. The court held that custodial interrogation was not necessitous, citing lack of serious injuries to officers and prior bail to a co-accused, imposing bond and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to bond of Rs.40,000 and four specific conditions including cooperation with investigation.

Vinesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | 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. 1039 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 2269/2017 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2

¶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 METHANVILA 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. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 001.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶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.1039 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 herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.2269 of 2017 of the Parassala Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 294 (b), 342 and 332 r/w Section 149 IPC.

¶23

3.On 22.12.2017, at about 20.30 hours, the Sub Inspector of Parassala Police Station intercepted a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-19/B-613 and questioned three persons who were found riding the bike. They managed to escape and entered the nearby Church. The Sub Inspector and a posse of police officers followed them and entered the Church compound. It is alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 12 and about 100 others, who could be identified at sight, locked the Church gate and confined the police personnel. Thereafter, they are alleged to

¶24

B.A.Nos.1039 of 2018 2

¶25

have clouted him and caused injuries. The bike which was taken into custody was also taken away. By their acts, the petitioners and others are alleged to have deterred the public servants from discharging their official duties.

¶26

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that against police atrocities, Annexure-C and D complaints were submitted before the superior police officers and it is in order to secure their position that the instant Crime has been registered. It is further submitted that no injuries were caused to the officer and taking note of this aspect, this Court by order dated 63.2018, in B.A.No.1098 of 2018 had granted anticipatory bail to the 4^th accused.

¶27

5.I have considered the submissions. 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 committed mischief. The records do not reveal that the police personnel had sustained any serious injuries. Furthermore, the 4^th accused has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶28

B.A.Nos.1039 of 2018 3

¶29

6.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 cases.

¶30

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:

¶31

(i)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 appear as and when directed.

¶32

ii)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

¶33

B.A.Nos.1039 of 2018 4

¶34

such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶40

IAP //True Copy\

¶41

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