Vishnu Vs. State of Kerala

Vishnu vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 02, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1153847

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1153847
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Thomas P.Joseph
Decided On: Jul 02, 2014
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vishnu

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....bail under section 438 of code of criminal procedure.2. the case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 02.02.2014 at 10.p.m the accused persons with common intention of committing crime criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant with deadly weapon with the preparation to commit crime and with an intention to commit culpable homicide attacked the de facto complainant with an iron rod and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under section 452, 323 and 308 read with section 34 of indian penal code.3. the counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the matter has been settled between the parties and they have filed crl.m.c.no.2233/2014 to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well. further, the name of the 4th b.a.no.2749 of 2014 :2. : petitioner has not been mentioned in the first information report and his name was subsequently added. so, according to him, it is a false implication. so, he prayed for allowing the application.4. the application was opposed by the public prosecutor on the ground that the first accused is accused in other cases as well and the investigation is still in progress and the weapon of offence alleged to have been used has to be recovered.5. heard both sides.6. it is seen from the records that on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant, crime no.256/2014 of cherthala police station was registered against petitioners 1 to 3 and one prakasan alleging offences under sections 452, 323, 308 read with section 34 of indian penal code. it is also seen from the records that during investigation, it was revealed that the person who involved is the 4th petitioner and so, the said prakasan was deleted and 4th petitioner was substituted. it is too early for this court to come to a conclusion as to whether 4th petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case or not merely because he has b.a.no.2749 of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE2D DAY OF JULY201411TH ASHADHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 2749 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 256/2014 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA ------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO4-: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. VISHNU, AGED25YEARS, S/O.PONNAPPAN, VISHNU SADANAM, WARD NO.XII THANNEERMUKKOM PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA.

2. SUNIL, AGED24YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN, NARAYANAVELI, WARD NO.XII THANNEERMUKKOM PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA.

3. PRAVEEN, AGED19YEARS, S/O.PRAKASAN, AMBALAVELI VEETTIL, WARD NO.XII, THANNEERMUKKOM PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA.

4. KANNAN, AGED24YEARS, S/O.SIVADASAN, DEVI VILASOM VEEDU, WARD NO.XII, THANNEERMUKKOM PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT : --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0207-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: BP K. Ramakrishnan, J.

============================== B.A.No.2749 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 02nd day of July, 2014. ORDER

This is an application filed by the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.256/2014 of Cherthala Police Station, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 02.02.2014 at 10.p.m the accused persons with common intention of committing crime criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant with deadly weapon with the preparation to commit crime and with an intention to commit culpable homicide attacked the de facto complainant with an iron rod and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under Section 452, 323 and 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the matter has been settled between the parties and they have filed Crl.M.C.No.2233/2014 to quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement and no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case as well. Further, the name of the 4th B.A.No.2749 of 2014 :

2. : petitioner has not been mentioned in the First Information Report and his name was subsequently added. So, according to him, it is a false implication. So, he prayed for allowing the application.

4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the first accused is accused in other cases as well and the investigation is still in progress and the weapon of offence alleged to have been used has to be recovered.

5. Heard both sides.

6. It is seen from the records that on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant, Crime No.256/2014 of Cherthala Police Station was registered against petitioners 1 to 3 and one Prakasan alleging offences under Sections 452, 323, 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is also seen from the records that during investigation, it was revealed that the person who involved is the 4th petitioner and so, the said Prakasan was deleted and 4th petitioner was substituted. It is too early for this court to come to a conclusion as to whether 4th petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case or not merely because he has B.A.No.2749 of 2014 :

3. : been substituted later. This court has already dismissed the application for quashing the proceedings today as per order in Crl.M.C.No.2233/2014. Considering the fact that a dangerous weapon has been used and that has to be recovered as part of the investigation, this court feels that it is not a fit case to invoke the power under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Further, the first accused is accused in other cases as well. The anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners before the Sessions Court was dismissed evidenced by Annexure II Order. Considering the circumstances, this court feels that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage. However, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer, the investigating officer is at liberty to interrogate them and if he feels that their arrest is required after recording their arrest, produce them before the concerned magistrate court and the magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the bail application if any filed before that court as far as possible on the same day after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of B.A.No.2749 of 2014 :

4. : that court in accordance with law. With the above direction and observation, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Vishnu vs State of Kerala Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Thomas P.Joseph