High CourtsSingle Bench

Vipin Raj @ Beedi Suni vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 April 2022 · Citation: (2022) 04 KL CK 0007

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gopinath P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 307, 323, 324, 326, 341
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1414 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 480 words

Gopinath P., J

1.

This is an application for regular bail.

2.

The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.179 of 2019 of Venjaramoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 307, 323, 324, 326 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the petitioner along with the other accused restrained the de-facto complainant and his friend at about 01.30AM on 04.02.2019 and assaulted one Praveen Kumar, who is a friend of the de-facto complainant as well as the de-facto complainant. The enmity between the parties is on account of the fact that the aforesaid Praveen Kumar had assaulted the petitioner while they were in a bar and consuming liquor.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is absolutely innocent tin the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation as the petitioner has already been in custody for 53 days.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail though it is conceded that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. It is submitted that the circumstances of the case indicate that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted bail. It is submitted that the de-facto complainant and his friend suffered fairly serious injuries owing to the attack by the petitioner and others.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for 53 days and his continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted bail subject to conditions. I also note that no criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioner.

6.

In the result, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

(1) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;

(2) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in Crime No.179 of 2019 of Venjaramoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, on every Saturday at 11.00AM until filing of final report;

(3) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.179 of 2019 of Venjaramoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District;

(4) The 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.179 of 2019 of Venjaramoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.