High CourtsSingle Bench

Vishnu Prasad @ Vishnu vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 January 2024 · Citation: (2024) 01 KL CK 0112

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 109, 118, 120B, 201, 302, 307, 324, 326, 465, 471 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 7(a), 27(3)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application Nos. 2252, 4176 & 10529 Of 2023
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

18 paragraphs · 851 words

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

1.

These are second bail applications seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

The applicants are the accused, Nos. 4 to 6, in Crime No.203/2022 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 109, 118, 120B, 324, 326, 307, 302, 465, 471, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and section 27(3) r/w 7(a) of the Arms Act.

3.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 15/4/2022 at about 1.20 p.m., the applicants and the remaining accused, in furtherance of their common intention to commit the murder of one Sri. Mohammed Subair, rammed a car into the bike on which he and his father were returning from the mosque, and the accused, Nos.1 and 2 slashed him with weapons that they were carrying, and he after that, succumbed to the injuries.

4.

Heard both sides and perused the case diary.

5.

The  learned  counsel  for  the  applicants  Adv.Sruthy N.Bhat submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. She further submitted that there are no materials to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to get bail. Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution opposed the bail applications. He contended that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and if the applicants are released on bail at this stage, they would influence the witnesses.

6.

The accused No.4 was arrested on 29/4/2022, accused No.5 was arrested on 30/4/2022 and accused No.6 was arrested on 4/5/2022. Since then, they have been in judicial custody. The investigation is over, and the final report has already been filed. All the applicants have been in custody for the past more than 1½ years. True, perusal of the final report would reveal that the accusation against the applicants is well founded. However, admittedly, it was the accused Nos.1 to 3, who inflicted the injuries and caused the death of the deceased. The applicants were not present at the place of occurrence as well. They were roped in as conspirators. The FIR or the FIS does not reveal the name of any of the applicants. The learned counsel for the applicants made available to me a recent order of another Single Bench of this Court in BA No.10247/2023 dated 9th January 2024, wherein accused No.7, who was similarly placed as that of the present applicants, was granted bail. The learned ADGP has made available to me an order of another Single Bench of this Court in BA No. 4341/2023 dated 26th September 2023, wherein accused No.9, who was also similarly placed as that of the present applicants, was denied regular bail.

7.

The fact that the investigation is over and the final report is filed, that the applicants have been in custody for more than 1½ years, that the trial of the case is yet to begin, that the accused No.7, who stands in the same footing as that of the present applicants, was granted bail by this court, that FIR or FIS does not disclose the name of the applicants, that the applicants were not physically present at the place of occurrence and that even as per the prosecution version, it was the accused Nos.1 to 3 who inflicted the injuries and caused the death of the deceased, I am of the view that further detention of the applicants is not necessary and they can be released on bail. It is true that the accused Nos.5 and 6 have criminal antecedents. But those cases are old ones.

In the result, the applications are allowed on the following conditions: -

(i) The applicants shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(ii) The applicants shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The applicants shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Saturday until further orders. They shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicants shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicants shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file affidavits to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond.

(vii) The applicants shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

(viii) The applicants shall not enter into Palakkad District.

(ix) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the trial court.