Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Vineesh N.T @ Kalidasan vs State Of Kerala on 30 March, 2023

Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas

Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
     THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945
                     CRL.M.C NO. 2276 OF 2023
 AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.30/2023 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS
                           COURT, KOYILANDY


PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED:

          VINEESH N.T @ KALIDASAN
          AGED 40 YEARS
          S/O PREMAN,
          CHEZHUKKATTU THARAPARAMBIL (H),
          PAYYOLI P.O, KOYILANDY,
          KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673305

          BY ADVS.
          T.K.SANDEEP
          ARJUN SREEDHAR
          ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
          ALEX ABRAHAM
          VEENA HARIKUMAR
          SWETHA R.
          HARIKRISHNAN P.B.


RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

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

          BY ADV
          NOUSHAD.K.A
          PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.2276 of 2023

                                          2




                        BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                      ====================
                         Crl.M.C.No.2276 of 2023
                     =====================
                    Dated this the 30th day of March, 2023


                                     ORDER

By an order dated 08.04.2021, petitioner was granted bail in Crime No.80/2021 and 79/2021, both of Payyoli Police Station in B.A. No.2915/2021 of this Court. One of the conditions for grant of bail was that petitioner shall not get himself involved in similar other offences.

2. In the meantime, on 10.02.2022, petitioner is alleged to have trespassed into the house of one Sarang and after abusing him, attempted to assault the defacto complainant with some material made of iron and at that moment, the defacto complainant's brother ran and warded of the said attack, due to which he sustained injury to his finger and thereby the accused committed the offences.

3. Crime No.91/2022 of Payyoli Police Station was registered on the basis of the aforenoted allegation. Thereafter, an application was filed for cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner in B.A. No.2915/2021 By the impugned order dated 6.03.2023, the learned Assistant Sessions Court, Koyilandy, cancelled the bail after finding that the petitioner involved himself in a subsequent offence.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor objected the application and Crl.M.C.No.2276 of 2023 3 submitted that petitioner is presently involved in Crime No.79/2021 and 91/2022 of the Payyoli Police Station, and that he is a known criminal and even a report under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vadakara to initiate action under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act (KAAPA). It was further submitted that, if petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance of him repeating crimes and therefore, there is no cause for canceling the bail.

5. In the decision in Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana [1995 (1) SCC 349] as well as in Godson Vs. State of Kerala [2022 (4) KLJ 150], this Court had observed that cancellation of bail should not be automatic and there must be overwhelming circumstances to do so. The proximity of time between the two offences and the circumstance as to whether the subsequent crime would deprive a fair trial, are also matters to be verified by the Court when called upon to cancel the bail.

6. From the nature of allegations in the subsequent crime, it is noticed that no serious injuries are alleged to have been inflicted on the defacto complainant therein. The nature of allegation would not justify the cancellation of bail, especially, since fair trial in the first case would not be affected by the alleged commission of the offences in the subsequent crime. Further the long period of time between the two crimes is also a relevant factor while considering the question of cancellation of bail. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I Crl.M.C.No.2276 of 2023 4 am of the view that, the order cancelling bail granted to the petitioner is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, I set aside Annexure A IV order dated 06.03.2023 in C.M.P. No. 30/2023 in S.C. No.638/2022 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Koyilandy.

This Crl.M.C. is allowed as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE Jka/30.03.23.

Crl.M.C.No.2276 of 2023

5

APPENDIX OF CRL.M.C.No.2276/2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 18.02.2021 REGISTERED BY THE PAYYOLI POLICE STATION Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A 2915/2021 IN CRIME NO.80/2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 08.04.2021 Annexure-III TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 91/2022 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION DATED 22.02.2021 Annexure4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2023 IN CMP. NO. 30/2023 IN SC NO.

638/2022, ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE KOYILANDY