Allowed

Vipin.K.v v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jun 2019Bail Appl./1242/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application filed by VIPIN.K.V convicted of offences under sections 354(B) and 395 IPC. Court ordered immediate appearance, cooperation with investigation, and granted bail on execution of bond with specific conditions including non-approaching of complainant.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on personal bond of Rs. 40,000 on execution of bond and furnishing of two solvent sureties subject to specific conditions.

Vipin.K.v Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1242 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.1124/2018 OF Peramangalam Police Station , Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

VIPIN.K.V AGED 30 YEARS S/O. VIDYADHARAN, PERAMANGALAM, PURNATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA SRI.A.P.VASAVAN

¶10

RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031.

¶11

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, PERAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAMANAGALAM POLICE STATION, PERAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.1242 of 2019

¶16

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J

¶18

============================

¶19

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1242/2019

¶20

==============================================

¶21

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF JUNE, 2019

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner has been arrayed as the 1^st accused in crime No. 1124/2018 of Peramangalam Police Station, which has been initially registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354(B) and 395 of the IPC. The learned Prosecutor now submits that the Police, after investigation, has deleted the offence as per Section 395 of the IPC, so that, the only non-bailable offences now alleged against the petitioner is the one as per Section 354(B) of the IPC. Accused No. 2 in this case has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court as per order dated 13/02/2019 in BA No. 657/2019. The prosecution case in short is that on 28/11/2018, at about 9.30 pm, when the lady defacto complainant was travelling with her friend in a car, six persons who could be identified at sight had intersected the vehicle and pulled out her friend and attacked him with weapons. It appears that the nature of the allegations disclosed as against the petitioner herein (A1) and as against A2 (BA No. 657/2019) are broadly similar.

¶24

Bail Appl..No.1242 of 2019

¶25

¶26

Accordingly it is ordered that:-

¶27

1. The petitioner will immediately, personally appear before the Investigating Officer in relation to crime no.1124/2018 of Peramangalam Police Station the above said crime for the interrogation process without any further delay at any rate by 10.00 am on or before 27/06/2019.

¶28

2. Petitioner will fully co-oporate with the Investigating Officer for the interrogation process.

¶29

3. After the interrogation process is over, if the Investigation Officer arrests the petitioner in relation to the above said crime, then he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Fourty Thousand only) each and his separately furnishing two solvent sureties to the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶30

However the grant of bail may be subject to the following conditions.

¶31

(i) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶32

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation. (iii) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when required in that connection.

¶33

(iv) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶34

(v) Petitioner shall not visit or go anywhere near the residence of the lady defacto complainant in this case.

¶35

Bail Appl..No.1242 of 2019

¶36

¶37

(vi) If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

¶38

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶41

Nsd //true copy// Pa to Judge

¶42

JUDGE

Vipin.K.v v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin.K.v 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

Shameer B.L. Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Jinachandran Vs Parakkal Pushpa

Jose Vs State of Kerala

Suma Dayalan Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor T.P. Vs State of Kerala

Hashim @ Asham Vs State of Kerala