Kerala High Court
Vishnu.K vs State Of Kerala on 30 January, 2017
Author: K.Abraham Mathew
Bench: K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
MONDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/10TH MAGHA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 64 of 2017 ()
-----------------------------
CRIME NO. 901/2016 OF OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD DISTRICT
-------------------
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------
1. VISHNU.K.,
AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN,
AYODHYA NAGAR, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD.
2. RAHUL,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN,
KULATHINKAL HOUSE, KANNIYAMPURAM,
OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.D.FEROZE
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031
(CRIME NO.901/2016 OF OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT).
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 101,
(CRIME NO.901/2016 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT).
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No. 64 of 2017
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2017
ORDER
Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioners are accused 4 and 5 in Crime No.901 of 2016 of Ottappalam Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 506(ii), 447, 427 and Section 149 IPC.
3. They are sympathizers of RSS. It is alleged that they along with the co-accused armed with deadly weapons like swords, iron rods assaulted the victims, who are DYFI workers on account of political enmity. The victims sustained serious injuries.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. There is no doubt that the victims sustained serious injuries on their heads. The question is identification of the petitioners as offenders. The incident happened at 1.45 in the afternoon. The First Information was given by one of the victims. The petitioners and the victims belong to the same locality. In the FI Statement the name of not even a single assailant is mentioned. This is doubtful. The name of the second B.A.No. 64 of 2017 2 petitioner was mentioned in the statement given by the first informant later under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is not known how he got the name of the first petitioner which was not known to him earlier. The first petitioner's name finds a place in the statement made by the third accused when he was arrested and interrogated by the police. So prima facie, he is involved in the case. Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner and not to the first petitioner.
In the result, this Bail Application is allowed in part.
i. The second petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if he is arrested by the Police in connection with this case.
ii. He shall appear before the investigating officer between 3.00 p.m and 4.00 p.m every Friday for four months, or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
iii. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he get himself B.A.No. 64 of 2017 3 involved in any other criminal case.
iv. He shall surrender his passport before the lower court concerned or if he does not have one he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release.
If he surrenders before the Magistrate, this order is not applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the lower court concerned is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE pm