Kerala High Court
Vishnu @ Kuttayi vs The State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2020
Author: V Shircy
Bench: V Shircy
B.A.1009/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.1009 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 628/2020 DATED 01-02-2020 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, PUNALUR
CRIME NO.149/2020 OF Pathanapuram Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
VISHNU @ KUTTAYI
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. RAVI, RAMYA BHAVAN, MULLOORNIRAPPU,
PATHIRIKKAL MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILALGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT 689 695
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH RPERESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682 031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
POLICE STATION OF PATHANAPURAM,
PATHANAPURAM P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT 689 695
R1 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP CK SURESH WITH ADGP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.1009/2020
2
ORDER
Dated this the 25th day of February 2020 Application for regular bail.
2. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 149 of 2020 of Pathanapuram Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioner has been in custody since 24.01.2020.
4. The prosecution allegation is that on 23.01.2020 at about 7.30 p.m., this petitioner along with the other accused have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, attacked the defacto complainant with deadly weapons, due to their enmity towards him. The 1 st accused had hacked him with a chopper and the 2nd accused inflicted fatal injury on his head by beating with an iron rod and thus have attempted to commit murder of the defacto complainant. B.A.1009/2020 3
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner is totally innocent. But he has been falsely implicated in the case due to the influence of the defacto complainant over the police.
6. The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor contending that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents and he is also engaged with illegal activities in that area and creating nuisance to the local people.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Of course, the gravity of the offences alleged against this petitioner are grave and serious in nature. He is also having criminal antecedents. But the investigation of the case is well in progress. The weapons used by this petitioner to inflict fatal injury on the defacto complainant has also been recovered. Considering all these facts, I think that this petitioner can be enlarged on bail.
This application is allowed subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the B.A.1009/2020 4 like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V. JUDGE sb