Allowed

Vishnu Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Feb 2021Bail Appl./1691/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed pre-arrest bail to the 3rd accused in a criminal case involving allegedly committed offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 308 IPC. The Court found no reason for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; directed to surrender within two weeks; released on bail upon execution of bond and sureties after interrogation if arrested.

Vishnu Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1691 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.37/2021 OF PALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

VISHNU RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 28 YEARS POWER HOUSE ROAD, KOCHI-682018

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA AGED 50 YEARS REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶12

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.1691 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this the 26^th day of February 2021

¶20

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶21

The applicant is the 3rd accused in Crime No. 37/2021 of Pala Police Station, Kottayam District for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323,324,308 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶22

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04-012021 at about 11.50 p.m., the applicant and the coaccused totalling four in number, due to the previous enmity towards the de facto complainant in furtherance of common intention hurled abuses at him and thereafter, attacked him by means of dangerous weapons like knife and iron rod and attempted to commit culpable homicide.

¶23

Bail Appl..No.1691 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. It is stated that in the FI statement, that it was the 1st accused, who had allegedly stabbed the de facto complainant on his back with an iron rod. Thereafter, on being accosted by the de facto complainant and his friends he fled from there. In a subsequent statement given by the de facto complainant, he has accused three others also as his assailants. That the version is different from the F. I. statement, and it states that the 1st accused had allegedly stabbed him with a knife, while the other accused attacked him with an iron rod. The F.I. statement and the subsequent statement are at great variance. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the prosecution case cannot be believed. The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor admits that the

¶28

Bail Appl..No.1691 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

applicant has no criminal antecedents. Even admitting the subsequent version of the prosecution as true, the applicant has not caused any life-threatening or serious injury on the de facto complainant. The allegations are entirely on the 1st accused, who allegedly used an iron rod in the first instance and thereafter, used a knife to assault the de facto complainant. Therefore, I find no reason for the custodial interrogation of the applicant.

¶31

Hence, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer, within two weeks. After interrogation and recovery, in the event of him being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on following conditions:

¶32

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called

¶33

for.

¶34

Bail Appl..No.1691 OF 2021

¶35

¶36

(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence,

¶37

intimidate or influence witnesses.

¶38

(iii) He shall not get involved in similar

¶39

offences during the bail period.

¶40

In case of the breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶41

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶42

Vishnu Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Radhakrishnan 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

Sabeer Vs State of Kerala

Sweetdil Vs State of Kerala

Saabir Vs State of Kerala

Aboobacker Vs State of Kerala

Sakir P Vs State of Kerala

Athul a Vs State of Kerala