Vishnulal.P.M vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 993 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 993 Ker
Judgement Date : 25 January, 2022

Kerala High Court

Vishnulal.P.M vs State Of Kerala on 25 January, 2022

             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. 9894 OF 2021
           AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 530/2021
        OF THE COURT OF SESSION, KOZHIKODE DIVISION
                      ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

    1        VISHNULAL.P.M, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN,
             PUTHALLATHKANDY, MEETHAL(H), ERAVATTUR P.O.,
             KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 525.

    2        MITHUN K.C., AGED 27 YEARS
             S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KOLORACHALIL(H),
             PERAMBRA P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 525.

    3        ABHINAND P., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.BABU, PUTHIYOTTIL
             HOUSE, PERAMBRA P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 525.

             BY ADVS.
             C.K.PRASAD
             K.T.DIVYAMOL


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

             STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
             PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT THROUGH
             PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

             SRI. NOUSHAD K.A. (SR.PP)


    THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.01.2022,     THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 9894 of 2021
                                        2

                                   ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.110 of 2021 of

Perambra Police Station, Kozhikode District, alleging commission of offences

under Sections 341, 323, 324, 451 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they attacked

attacked the de facto complainant causing injuries on his face below his right

eye and also causing fracture on his nasal bone. It is submitted that on

account of the aforesaid attack, and on the complaint of the de facto

complainant, the aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit with

reference to the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant that

none of the allegations in the First Information Statement could amount to

an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code which is the only non-

bailable offence alleged against the petitioners. It is submitted that the

Sessions Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners only on

account of the fact that they were alleged to have criminal antecedents. It is BAIL APPL. NO. 9894 of 2021

submitted that in respect of the criminal antecedents referred to in the order

of the Sessions Court, Crime No.560/2014 was registered under Section 279

IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act and this offence has already

been compounded. It is submitted that Crime No.711/2020 and 712/2020

were registered in connection with a public protest held in Perambra

Panchayath Market and in relation to an employment dispute where a large

number of persons have arrayed as accused. It is submitted that Crime

No.572/2020 registered against the 2nd petitioner is a case where the 2nd

petitioner has already been acquitted. It is submitted that the 3 rd petitioner

has no criminal antecedents.

5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that, though initially only

bailable offences were incorporated in Crime No.110/20201, on the basis of

the medical report obtained by the de facto complainant later, it was noticed

that he had suffered a fracture following which the provisions of Section 326

IPC was also invoked against the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioners

had used a weapon known as nanjak which is used by persons practicing

Karate and also with a sharp edged weapon and helmet and as a result of

which the de facto complainant has suffered serious injuries. It is submitted BAIL APPL. NO. 9894 of 2021

that the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would add that the

offence in question allegedly took place on 18.03.2021. Its is submitted that

for the past more than ten months, custody of the petitioners has not been

required. It is submitted that itself is an indication that the petitioners are

entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and

taking into account the nature of the allegations against the petitioners and

also taking into account the fact that their custodial interrogation may not be

necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that

the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to the conditions.

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

petitioners shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No.110

of 2021 of Perambra Police Station, Kozhikode District, subject to the

following conditions:-

i. Petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each with two solvent

sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the BAIL APPL. NO. 9894 of 2021

Jurisdictional Court;

ii. Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall

report before the investigating officer at 9 A.M on 31.01.2022,

01.02.2022 and 02.02.2022 and thereafter whenever called

upon to do so;

iii. Petitioners shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation

or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant or any

witness in Crime No.110 of 2021 of Perambra Police Station,

Kozhikode District;