The Court allowed an application for pre-arrest bail under sections 353 and 506(1) IPC, imposing conditions regarding interrogation, cooperation with investigation, and non-interference with witnesses.
Petitioner released on bail subject to executing a bond of Rs. 50,000, cooperation with investigation, and non-interference with witnesses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 30TH POUSHA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.58 OF 2020
CRIME NO.2591/2019 OF Medical College Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/S:
B.S.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 62 YEARS, ADVOCATE, S/O.N.BHASKARAN NAIR, VIJAYAGEETHAM, CRA 103, TC 2/1514-3, OPPOSITE COSMOPOLITAN HOSPITAL, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.SABU PULLAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
R1 & R2 BY PP SREEJA V
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.58 OF 2020 2
O R D E R
Application for pre-arrest bail.
Crime No.2591/2019 of Medical College Police
Station, Thiruvananthapuram registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506(1) of Indian Penal Code.
follows:
The wife of the petitioner is running a hotel by name 'Geetham Family Restaurant' at Thiruvananthapuram. On 17.12.2019 at about 10.15 p.m., the Health Inspector attached to Thiruvananthapuram Corporation came to the hotel as part of his official duty and he detected plastic items being used in the
restaurant and when he was about to leave the
hotel after his duty, he failed to take the
walky talky kept on a table in the restaurant. Immediately, the petitioner has closed down the hotel and left the place with the intention to
B.A.No.58 OF 2020 3
deter the Defacto Complainant from discharging his official duty and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
submitted that, his wife is running a hotel along with his son at Thiruvananthapuram. On 17.12.2019, in the late night hours, when they were about to close down the hotel, the defacto complainant came along with his colleague in a highly intoxicated stage and demanded food. But as all the food items were finished by that time, they could not serve the food as demanded by him. But they got infuriated by the same, though they left the place. But somehow, the walky talky used by the Health Inspector happened to be in the restaurant. It was not
known to them and so, the wife of the petitioner and her son along with the petitioner, who came there, left the place after closing down the restaurant. But by 2
a.m., he received a phone call from the police intimating that the walky talky of the Health
B.A.No.58 OF 2020 4
Inspector who came to the restaurant was left
in the restaurant. Then the petitioner informed that he will hand over the same on the next day and on the next day he handed over the same to the police and also lodged a complaint against the Health Inspector for having created
a scene in the late night hours in the restaurant run by his wife. As retaliation to the said complaint, the Health Inspector has lodged this complaint against this petitioner. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He is a lawyer practicing in the Courts of Thiruvananthapuram for the last so many years and he has nothing to do with the alleged incident.
that the investigation of the case is well in progress.
offences alleged against this petitioner and other facts and circumstances involved in this
B.A.No.58 OF 2020 5
case, I think that pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner as requested by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Therefore this application is allowed
subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for like sum in the event of his arrest by the police in connection with the above crime.
(ii) He shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him in writing. He
shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.
(iii) He 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 from disclosing such facts to the
court or to any police officer or tamper with
B.A.No.58 OF 2020 6
the evidence.
(iv) He shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
uu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the petitioner in POSCO-related offences.
Whether the conditions for bail should be imposed on the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B.S. Vijayakumar
State of Kerala
Sub Inspector of Police, Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
Shircy V.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
