Allowed

Vineesh K.B v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jan 2022Bail Appl./6928/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to Vineesh K.B, accused of resisting, manhandling, and causing injuries. Bail allowed subject to bond, cooperation with investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and no new crimes.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to execution of bond, cooperation with investigation, reporting obligations, and conduct conditions.

Vineesh K.B Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | 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 JANUARY 2022 / 17TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 6928 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.747/2021 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶7

VINEESH K.B, AGED 26 YEARS S/O. BINU.K.C, 31/1765, KODIYANTHARA, THAMMANAM, ERNAKULAM-682 032.

¶8

BY ADVS. ANIL K.MUHAMMED B.S.SURAJ KRISHNA YADUKRISHNAN N.

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031 BY SMT.SEETHA.S (SR.PP)

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

BAIL APPL. NO. 6928 OF 2021

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶16

The petitioner is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.747 of 2021 of Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with the other accused in the case wrongfully restrained the de-facto complainant on 29.06.2021 at about 05.30PM and manhandled him and caused severe injuries including fracture and thereby they committed the offences alleged against them.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case where the allegations against the petitioner are fabricated. It is submitted that the de-facto complainant had attacked the 1^st accused and his wife by using a weapon, which incident led to registration of Annexure – A2 complaint as Crime No.734 of 2021 of Panangad Police Station against the de-facto complainant (Annexure – A2 FIR). Thereafter, on completely wrong and false allegations, a complaint was filed by the de-facto complainant against the the petitioner and others, which led to registration of

¶18

¶19

BAIL APPL. NO. 6928 OF 2021

¶20

Crime No.747 of 2021 of Panangad Police Station. It is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and further that the 1^st accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶21

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and especially considering the fact that the 1^st accused in the case has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court through order dated 06.09.2021 in Bail Application No.5996 of 2021 and also considering the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary, I am of the opinion that this application can be allowed subject to conditions.

¶23

In the result, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.747 of 2021 of Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam District, subject to the following conditions:

¶24

(i) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;

¶25

¶26

BAIL APPL. NO. 6928 OF 2021

¶27

(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall report before the investigating officer in Crime No.747 of 2021 of Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam District, at 09.00AM on 12.01.2022 & 13.01.2022 and thereafter whenever called upon to do so;

¶28

(iii) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant o r any witness in Crime No.747 of 2021 of Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam District;

¶29

(iv) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶30

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.747 of 2021 of Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam District, may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

¶31

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶32

Vineesh K.B v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineesh K.B 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

Soorya S. Vs State of Kerala

Jithinraj Vs State of Kerala

Rajeshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Deepak Mani Vs the State of Kerala

Jyothish, Vs the State of Kerala

Veeraputhiran Vs the State of Kerala