Partly allowed

Vishnu K.K., v. Inspector of Police

Kerala HC7 Jul 2021CRL.A/216/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held a criminal appeal by an accused aggrieved by the dismissal of an anticipatory bail application. The court observed that the FIR disclosed allegations attracting the Special Enactment despite initial omission and directed the appellant to appear within two weeks for consideration of regular bail.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case (anticipatory bail) was dismissed; however, the appellant was directed to appear before the lower court within two weeks to apply for regular bail.

Vishnu K.K., Vs Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶5

CRL.A NO. 216 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.176/2021 OF Vaikom Police Station, Kottayam

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 292/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

¶8

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

VISHNU K.K., AGED 30 YEARS

¶10

S/O. KANAKAMBARAN, KURINJIKKATTU HOUSE, NEAR KSEB, THALAYAZHAM P.O VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM 686 607.

¶11

BY ADV NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM,

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, , ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶15

3 UMESH KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS

¶16

S/O. KANAKAMBARAN, KURINJIKKATTU HOUSE, NEAR KSEB, THALAYAZHAM P.O. VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM 686 607.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SMT.S.L.SYLAJA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶19

07.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.A.No.216 of 2021

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the dismissal of an

¶24

anticipatory bail application - Crl.M.P.292/2021

¶25

by the Sessions Court, Kottayam in connection

¶26

with the crime No.176/2021 registered on the allegation of both the offences under IPC and the Special Enactment- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

¶27

Tribe(POA)Act, the accused came up. It is

¶28

submitted that the offence under the Special

¶29

Enactment was subsequently incorporated and not

¶30

included in the FIR registered at the first

¶31

instance. On going through the FIR and FIS, it is clear that the allegations sufficient to attract

¶32

the offence in the special enactment were

¶33

disclosed. Hence, it is the failure on the part

¶34

of the Officer, who registered the FIR to

¶35

incorporate proper provisions of the Special

¶36

Enactment at the time of registration of the FIR.

¶37

Hence, the bar under Section 18 and 18A would

¶38

come into play. The appeal deserves no merits. But taking into account the nature of the

¶39

Crl.A.No.216 of 2021

¶40

allegation levelled against the parties, I am of

¶41

the view that, it is fit and proper to direct the petitioner to appear before court below within

¶42

two weeks from today. Hence, there will be a

¶43

direction to that effect. On his appearance/ surrender, the regular bail, if any moved, shall be considered on the same day and pass orders taking into account all attending circumstances.

¶44

With the above said observations, the

¶45

Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

SPV

Crl.A.No.216 of 2021

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 216/2021

¶53

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURE

¶54

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT DATED 4.2.201 GIVEN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AT THE VAIKOM POLICE STATION, ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 176/2021 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPROT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM POLICE STATION BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT VAIKOM.

¶55

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

PA TO JUDGE

Vishnu K.K., v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu K.K., v. Inspector of Police

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

Shafeeque, Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed Shan P.K., Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Construction Company Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Chothy, Vs Subhash

Sunil Dath, Vs Kumari Mini

Sreeshkanth.M Vs the Station House Officer