Allowed

Vishnu Prasad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jan 2018Bail Appl./112/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by the accused. The court held custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Bail was granted subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation, cooperation with investigation, and a bond of Rs. 40,000.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation, cooperation with investigation, and execution of bond for Rs. 40,000 with two sureties.

Vishnu Prasad 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 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 2ND MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 112 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 1683/2017 OF VATAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

VISHNU PRASAD, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. PRAMODAN, PADINJARE THURUTHIYIL, KAKKATTIL, PUTHUPPANAM.P.O, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR SRI.M.A.VINOD SRI.M.RAJESH KUMAR SMT.B.SABITHA (DESOM)

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SHEEBA. K.K

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J

¶16

B.A No.112 of 2018

¶17

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

2.The petitioner herein is the 1^st accused in Crime No.1683 of 2017 of Vadakara Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 452, 324 and 354 of the IPC.

¶21

3.Prosecution allegation is that on 26.12.2017 at 7.15 p.m., the petitioner trespassed into the residential home of the victim and after assaulting her, tore off her clothes and thus outraged her modesty.

¶22

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a neighbor and there are property disputes between the petitioner and the victim. The allegations are exaggerated and no such incident had occurred is the submission.

¶23

5.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. However, it is submitted that the case diary does not reveal that any serious injury was sustained by the victim. It is also not reported that the petitioner is a person with prior

¶24

B.A No.112 of 2018

¶25

¶26

criminal antecedents.

¶27

6.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the materials in support thereof, the antecedents of the petitioner and attendant facts, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner in the instant case is uncalled for .

¶28

In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶29

i). The petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶30

ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶31

iii)The petitioner 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.

¶32

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

¶33

B.A No.112 of 2018

¶34

¶35

v) If he surrenders before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶36

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

¶37

orders in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

Vishnu Prasad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Prasad 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

Kochan Latheef Vs State of Kerala

P.G.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Anand Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf.C.K Vs State of Kerala

Babu.C. Vs the State of Kerala