Allowed

Vivek v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2022Bail Appl./4465/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted regular bail to the accused who had been in custody for nearly a year. The court discharged him from a case pending before the Sessions Court, subject to strict conditions to prevent future offences and ensure trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail subject to conditions: bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, reporting to SHO every Saturday, no witness influence, and no involvement in other crimes.

Vivek Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 4465 OF 2022

¶5

CRIME NO.309/2019 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR AND PENDING AS SC NO.664/2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE 1ST ADDITIONAL

¶6

SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

VIVEK, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.WILSON, ANTHIKKADAN HOUSE, ASARIKKUNNU SESOM, VELIYANNOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680 021.

¶9

BY ADVS. LINDONS C.DAVIS E.U.DHANYA SWATHY A.P.

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

BY SMT.K.B.SONY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

BAIL APPL. NO. 4465 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This is an application for regular bail.

¶18

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.309 of 2019 of Thrissur Town East Police Station, Thrissur District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 308, 341, 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Following investigation of the crime, a final report was filed in the matter and the case is now pending as S.C.No.664 of 2019 before the Court of the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur.

¶19

The petitioner was granted bail in Crime No.309 of 2019 on 12.06.2019 upon conditions including a condition that he shall not get involved in any other case. On the allegation that the petitioner thereafter got involved in the commission of Crime No.808 of 2019 of Thrissur Town East Police Station, Thrissur District, which was registered alleging commission of offences including one punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, an application for cancellation of bail granted in Crime No.309 of 2019 was filed and by Annexure – A2 order, the bail granted to the petitioner in Crime No.309 of 2019 was cancelled.

¶20

The petitioner thereafter approached this Court and filed

¶21

BAIL APPL. NO. 4465 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

Bail Application No.1139 of 2022, which was dismissed by this Court by Annexure – A5 order dated 17.02.2022.

¶24

When this matter is taken up for consideration today, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got bail in all other cases registered against him and following the cancellation of the bail granted in crime No.309 of 2019, the petitioner has been in custody from 02.12.2021. It is submitted that following the cancellation of bail, the petitioner has been in custody for nearly one year and further incarceration of the petitioner pending trial is a violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed u nder Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that in order to mount a proper defence in S.C.No.664 of 2019, it is necessary to grant bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in other cases only to ensure that the bail granted to him in Crime No.309 of 2019 of Thrissur Town East Police Station, Thrissur, is cancelled.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail. It is pointed out that the petitioner is a habitual offender and several cases are registered against him including an offence alleging the commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the crime in which the

¶26

¶27

BAIL APPL. NO. 4465 OF 2022

¶28

petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was committed by the petitioner while he was on bail in Crime No.309 of 2019. It is submitted that the petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to be released on bail and if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance of further offences being committed by the petitioner.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, I am of the view that considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for nearly one year following the cancellation of bail in Crime No.309 of 2019, he can be directed to be released on bail subject to strict conditions.

¶30

In the result, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶31

(1) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;

¶32

(2) Petitioner shall report before the Station House Officer, Thrissur Town East Police Station, Thrissur

¶33

BAIL APPL. NO. 4465 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

District, on every Saturday at 11.00AM until further orders;

¶36

(3) The petitioner shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any witness in S.C.No.664 of 2019 on the file of the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur;

¶37

(4) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶38

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.309 of 2019 of Thrissur Town East Police Station , Thrissur District, may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶39

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶40

Vivek v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju George @ Varkey Vs the Authorised Officer

Shaji C. C. Vs Irinjalakkuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.55

Korath Rajesh Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Sheetal Jain, Vs the State Tax Officer

B. Madhukumar Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Biju Mathew Vs the Authorized Officer