Vishnu S Babu vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3825 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

     TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942

                       Bail Appl..No.482 OF 2021

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 1018/2020 DATED 29-09-2020 OF ADDITIONAL
    DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 CRIME NO.636/2019 OF Museum Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram


PETITIONER:

               VISHNU S BABU
               AGED 37 YEARS
               VISHNU VIHAR, T.C 12-832, BARTON HILL, KUNNUKUZHY,
               THIRUVANATHAPURAM
               PIN-695035

               BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
               KERALA, ERNAKULAM
               PIN-682031

      2        STATION HOUSE OFFICER
               AGED 45 YEARS
               MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
               695001




               SR. GP-SRI. CHANDRASENAN D.

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION             ON
02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.482 of 2021              2




                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                   --------------------------------
                         B.A.No.482 of 2021
                    -------------------------------
              Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2021


                            ORDER

This is a Bail Application filed under Section 439 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.636 of 2019 on

the file of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

The above case is chargesheeted by the Museum Police and

now it is pending as S.C.No.1221 of 2019 before the

Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Thiruvananthapuram. The above

case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections

294(b), 341, 342, 324,326, 506(ii) and 302 r/w. 34 IPC.

3.The prosecution case in nutshell is that the petitioner

and another murdered one Ani on 24.3.2019. The petitioner

was arrested on 31.3.2019.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public

Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is in custody from 31.3.2019 onwards. The counsel

submitted that the petitioner earlier approached this Court with

an application for regular bail and as per order dated

18.3.2020 in B.A.No.1919 of 2020, this Court dismissed the

bail application with a direction to complete the trial. The

counsel submitted that even now the trial is not completed

and it is indefinitely delayed. Hence, the counsel for the

petitioner submitted that he may be released on bail.

6.The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail

application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial is in

the fag end and only 8 more witnesses are to be examined.

The Public Prosecutor also submitted that these witnesses are

official witnesses. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that

two other cases are registered against the petitioner because

he tried to intimidate the prosecution witnesses. The Public

Prosecutor also submitted that one of the witness gave

evidence before the Court after getting police protection from

the trial court. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the

petitioner may not be released on bail .

7. After hearing both sides, I think this is not a fit case, in

which the petitioner can be released on bail. The trial is in the

fag end. Only 8 witnesses are to be examined.

8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the

case, I think the petitioner is not entitled bail at this stage.

9. Moreover, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be

exercised on the well settled principles laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P v Central Bureau

of Investigation (AIR 2019 SC 5272). The apex court held

that, the following factors are to the taken into consideration

while considering the application for bail.

(i) the nature of accusation and the

severity of the punishment in the case of

conviction and the nature of the materials

relied upon by the prosecution;

(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering

with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to

the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the

presence of the accused at the time of trial or

the likelihood of his abscondence;

(iv) character behaviour and standing of

the accused and the circumstances which are

peculiar to the accused;

(v) larger interest of the public or the

State and similar other considerations.

It is true that there is no hard and fast rule regarding

grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be decided on

the basis of the facts and circumstances of that case. In the

light of the general principles laid down in the above judgment

and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am

of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which the petitioner

can be released on bail. Hence this Bail Application is

dismissed.

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

cms