Allowed

Manu Unnikrishnan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6054/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to four accused students charged with assault and grievous hurt. The court emphasized that custodial interrogation was not required, imposing conditions including cooperation with investigation, prohibition of witness tampering, and liability for police custody if recovery is sought under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants granted bail on Rs. 50,000 bond with conditions including appearance before police, cooperation with investigation, and submission to custody if required for discovery

Manu Unnikrishnan, 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6054 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.166/2019 OF MELPARAMBA POLICE STATION , Kasargod

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 MANU UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, MURDI BAVAN, KALLUMALA P.O., MAVELI, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

2 VISHNU RAMESH, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. RAMESH .P.D., PULIMOOTTIL, KARAMALA P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶10

3 NANDU ANIL, AGED 24 YEARS S/O. ANILKUMAR, ANAND HOUSE, AALUMOODU P.O., MUKKATH, KOLLAM.

¶11

4 JOSE PAUL. A.J., AGED 25 YEARS S/O. ANTONY, TC 69/1802, VASANTHA HOUSE, NEW COLONY, POONTHURA P.O. TVM.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM.

¶15

2 ADDL.R2 SRI.SUBIN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O SANKARAN, PARAPPIL HOUSE, NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE-673614.

¶16

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R2 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 5.9.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN BA.NO.6054/2019.

¶17

Bail Appl..No.6054 OF 2019

¶18

¶19

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

SRI B JAYASURYA SR PP

¶22

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Bail Appl..No.6054 OF 2019

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

The applicants herein are students of the Century International School of Dental Science, Poinachi. It is alleged that on 2.8.2019, at 2.20 pm, the applicants herein wrongfully restrained the informant and attacked him with an iron rod.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the applicants herein as well as the informant were house surgeons in the same college. According to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant misbehaved with a lady lecturer and this led to a wordy altercation. In the melee that followed, the de facto complainant had fallen on the ground and had suffered injuries.

¶29

Opposing the prayer, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim had suffered serious injuries including a fracture.

¶30

I have considered the submissions and perused the records. On perusal of the wound certificate which is dated 3.8.2019, it appears that the victim had suffered an undisplaced fracture of his nasal bone. Some minor injuries were also noted by the doctor, who examined the victim. As directed by this Court, the victim was impleaded as an additional respondent and notice was issued. Though the same was served, no one has appeared.

¶31

I find that no other crimes are reported against the applicants. They being students and in view of the nature of allegations and the stage of investigation, I do

¶32

Bail Appl..No.6054 OF 2019 4

¶33

not think that their custodial interrogation is required for an effective investigation in the instant case. However, if the Investigating Officer feels that the custody of the applicants are required for the purpose of investigation, the Investigating Officer will be at liberty to file appropriate application before the learned Magistrate. If such an application is filed, the applicants shall appear before the learned Magistrate and their presence before the learned Magistrate shall be treated as judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the application for police custody, as held in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and another v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565].

¶34

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants 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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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 applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶36

ii) They 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.

¶37

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

¶38

iv) In the event of the police making out a case of a likely recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the applicants shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery as held in paragraph No.19 of the judgment by a Constitution Bench of the Apex

¶39

Bail Appl..No.6054 OF 2019

¶40

¶41

Court reported as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra).

¶42

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.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶45

Ps/22/10/2019

¶46

//True copy//

¶47

PS to Judge

Manu Unnikrishnan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu Unnikrishnan, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haneesha Noufal, Vs State of Kerala

Siddhik Pallath Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

M.Vasantha Vs State of Kerala

V.Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Rajith Vs State of Kerala