Allowed

Vipin Kumar v. Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC5 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4500/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case alleging offences under IPC Sections 452, 324, 323. The court found no reason to believe the applicant would abscond or not cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail with directed surrender within two weeks and bond conditioned on non-interference with investigation

Vipin Kumar Vs Public Prosecutor — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4500 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1060/2020 OF ARUVIKKARA POLICE STATION, Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

VIPIN KUMAR AGED 34 YEARS, S/O VIJAYAN MAVUVILA VEEDU CHEKKAKONAM, THARATTA KARAKULAM VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695043

¶9

BY ADVS. SMT.M.SANTHI (K/868/2011) SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

¶12

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No.4500 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Dated this the 5th day of August 2020

¶18

This is an application filed under Section

¶19

438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶20

Applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.1060/2020 of Aruvikkara Police Station, for

¶21

having allegedly committed offences punishable

¶22

under Sections 452, 324, 323 of IPC.

¶23

The prosecution case in brief is that, on

¶24

04.07.2020 at about 7 p.m, the applicant had

¶25

allegedly trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, and had some dispute with him, in consequence of which, a scuffle ensued, and he was assaulted, and sustained certain injuries.

¶26

The applicant states that he is innocent

¶27

and the allegations are false and he did not

¶28

trespass the house of the defacto complainant with

¶29

the intention to commit an offence. They were

¶30

friends and were even drinking together very

¶31

Bail Appl..No.4500 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

cordially. Somehow the conversation took an ugly turn, and altercation followed scuffle in which the defacto complainant fell down and sustained some minor injuries, for which the applicant cannot be held responsible. It is further submitted that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation and therefore, prays for a pre-arrest bail.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant

¶35

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶36

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that

¶37

there are no records regarding the criminal antecedents of the applicant. The injuries sustained are not serious or life threatening. Admittedly no weapons have been used. But the defacto complainant sustained injuries due to a fall on the surface where there was a stone which hit him.

¶38

Bail Appl..No.4500 OF 2020

¶39

Under the circumstances, I find there is no

¶40

reason to believe that the applicant may not cooperate with the investigation or may abscond. Hence, he is entitled to a pre-arrest bail.

¶41

In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation, in the event of his being

¶42

arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions;

¶43

influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶44

ii. He shall appear before the investigating

¶45

officer as and when called for.

¶46

iii. He shall not get involved in similar

¶47

Bail Appl..No.4500 OF 2020

¶48

offences during the bail period.

¶49

In the event of violating the bail conditions,

¶50

the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional

Court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Vipin Kumar v. Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar v. Public Prosecutor

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

Aneesh Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Nishanth Vs State of Kerala

Nowfal Vs State of Kerala

Ullas Sebastian Vs State Ofkerala

Midhun Krishna Vs State of Kerala

Sreebil S Vs Public Prosecutor