Vishnu vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 969 Ker

B.A.No.7351/2021                           1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
    TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 5TH MAGHA, 1943
                         BAIL APPL. NO. 7351 OF 2021
       CRIME NO.1377/2021 OF FORT POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1581/2021 OF DISTRICT
                    COURT & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

            VISHNU,AGED 23 YEARS
            S/O. VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT T.C.47/1295,
            KOCHUNADAKKAVUVEEDU, POONTHURA P.O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 026.

            BY ADVS.
            J.R.PREM NAVAZ
            SUMEEN S.
            O.MOHAMED BASIL KOYA THANGAL



RESPONDENT/STATE:

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


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP)


THIS    BAIL     APPLICATION      HAVING   COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION   ON
25.01.2022,        THE    COURT   ON   THE     SAME    DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.7351/2021                           2

                                    ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the 1 st accused in Crime N0.1377/2021 of Fort

Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District alleging commission of offences

under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326 & 427 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along

with other accused attacked the de facto complainant and two others causing

serious injuries to them. The other accused in the case have already been

granted bail by the Sessions Court. The petitioner was denied bail on

account of the fact that there was cut injury to the hand of the de facto

complainant which was allegedly caused using a sword, by the petitioner/1 st

accused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that cut injury caused to

the de facto complainant was on account of him coming into a contact with

a sharp edged tin sheet and not on account of use of any weapon by the

petitioner/1st accused. It is submitted that there is a case registered at the

instance of the 4th accused against the de facto complainant and others which

has been registered as Crime No.1376/2021 of the very same Police Station.

It is submitted that since the other accused have already been granted bail,

the petitioner may also be granted bail.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor refers to the wound certificate in

respect of the de facto complainant and others and points out that serious

injuries have been caused to the de facto complainant and other accused in

the case. It is submitted that going by the statement of the de facto

complainant, the cut injury to his hand was caused by the petitioner/1 st

accused using a sword. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to

anticipatory bail.

6. I have gone through the wound certificate issued in respect of

the de facto complainant and other accused in the case. It is seen that, while

the friends of the de facto complainant had indicated that they were attacked

using hockey stick, by the petitioner and the other accused, the de facto

complainant had not stated that the cut injury to his arm on account of sword

used by the petitioner/1 st accused. This, the learned Public Prosecutor

submits, is not sufficient to establish that the petitioner had not used a

sword. That may be so. However, prima facie, for the purpose of entitlement

of the petitioner for bail, it must be noticed that the de facto complainant did

not suggest that he was attacked with sword by the petitioner/1 st accused. I

also note that the only reason for denying bail to the petitioner/1 st accused by

the Sessions Court is that he had caused a cut injury to the hand of the de

facto complainant using a sword.

7. In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the

petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in

Crime No.1377/2021 of Fort Police Station subject to the following

conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall execute 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;

(ii) Petitioner shall co-operative with the investigation and appear

before the investigating officer in Crime No.1377/2021 of Fort Police Station

at 9 a.m. on 31.1.2022 and 1.2.2022 and thereafter whenever called upon to

do so;

(iii) Petitioner shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant

or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in

Crime No.1377/2021 of Fort Police Station;

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

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer

in Crime No.1377/2021 of Fort Police Station may file an application before

the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

Any observation contained in this order is only for the purpose of

considering the entitlement of the petitioner for bail and shall not be treated

as a finding by this Court on any point.

sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE acd