Allowed

Vinesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2018Bail Appl./1045/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of damaging a police jeep and assaulting police. It directed a deposit of Rs. 5000/ each and imposed conditions including appearance before the investigating officer and prohibition of leaving the country. Custodial interrogation was deemed unneces sary based on the facts. Reliance placed on autopilot machine learning tasks. No external kn

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to deposit Rs. 5000/ each as condition precedent for bail. Bail granted subject to conditions including appearance before IO and bond for Rs. 40,000/.

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. 1045 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 2271/2017 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, 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. SUB 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.Nos.1045 & 1090 of 2018

¶19

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1.These petitions are filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

2.The petitioners in Bail Application No.1045 of 2018 are the accused Nos. 6 and 7 and the petitioner in Bail Application No.1090 of 2018 is the 4^th accused in Crime No.2271 of 2017

¶23

of the Parassala Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 149, 353 of the IPC and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Properties Act.

¶24

3.The informant is a senior Civil Police Officer of the Poovar Police Station. There occurred a fracas between a mob and police personnel in front of the CSI Church at Kaliyikkavila. The Control room was alerted and police rushed to the spot. After the issue had settled down, while the informant was returning back, about 50 persons are alleged to have confined the police personnel and some of the accused are

¶25

B.A.Nos.1045 & 1090 of 2018 2

¶26

alleged to have exhorted the assembled mob to cause destruction of the police jeep. It is alleged that the accused who could be identifiable at sight caused extensive damage to the police jeep and thus the State had to incur a loss to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-.

¶27

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are without basis. Without any provocation, the police personnel had entered the CSI Church and had assaulted the members of the laity. 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.2270 of 2017 and 2269 of 2017 and this Court had occasion to consider the Bail Applications of some of the accused and by order dated 6.3.2018 had granted anticipatory bail holding that custodial interrogation is uncalled for.

¶28

5.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is

¶29

B.A.Nos.1045 & 1090 of 2018 3

¶30

pointed out that though the names of the accused did not find a place in the earliest records, investigation revealed their complicity. It is also submitted that loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/- was caused.

¶31

6.I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶32

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, some of the accused in Crime Nos.2269 of 2017 and 2270 of 2017 have been granted anticipatory 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 cases. However, in view of the reported damage of the police jeep, which fact is substantiated by the

¶33

B.A.Nos.1045 & 1090 of 2018 4

¶34

contemporaneous mahazar, there shall be a direction to the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. Rs.5000/- each as a condition precedent for their enlargement on bail.

¶35

In the result, these petitions 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:

¶36

(i) The petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- 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.

¶37

(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

¶38

B.A.Nos.1045 & 1090 of 2018 5

¶39

appear as and when directed.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶44

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

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

IAP //True Copy \

¶49

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