Vishnu, vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jan 21, 2019

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1849788

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/1849788
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas
Decided On: Jan 21, 2019
Case Number: Bail Appl./166/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vishnu,

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....sumin.s respondent/state: state of kerala represented by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam 682 031. ajith murali this bail application having come up for admission on 21.01.2019, the court on the same day passed the following:orderthe petitioner herein stands arrayed as the fourth accused in crime no.199/2018 of perambra police station, for offences punishable under sections 3 and 5 of the explosive substances act, 1908.2. according to the prosecution due to political rivalry, on 18.4.2018 at about 12.40 am., the petitioner herein along with other accused hurled country bomb at the house of the defacto complainant. it exploded causing damage to the house. crime was registered and the petitioner apprehending arrest, seeks bail.3. according to the learned counsel for thepetitioner, the incident happened during night and merely because he belongs to the political party, he is roped in. there is no direct evidence to implicate him, it was contended.4. it seems that even in the fis, the name of thepetitioner herein is referred to. according to the defacto complainant, on hearing explosion, he opened the door and looked out. he had seen some of the accused, whose names are referred to in the first statement given to the police. the petitioner also is referred to in the fis. the petitioner has criminal antecedents and is involved in few other cases of similar nature. having considered these, i feel that this is not a fit case in which the benefit of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner herein. bail application fails and is dismissed. sd/- sunil thomas, judge r.av

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS MONDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 1ST MAGHA, 1940 CRIME NO. 199/2018 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED: VISHNU, AGED 23 YEARS S/O LATE RAJAN, RESIDING AT PARANTETHEZHEKKUNIYIL, AMBALITHAZHE, PERAMBRA P.O, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 525. BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SUMIN.S RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. AJITH MURALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner herein stands arrayed as the fourth accused in Crime No.199/2018 of Perambra Police Station, for offences punishable under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

2. According to the prosecution due to political rivalry, on 18.4.2018 at about 12.40 am., the petitioner herein along with other accused hurled country bomb at the house of the defacto complainant. It exploded causing damage to the house. Crime was registered and the petitioner apprehending arrest, seeks bail.

3. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the incident happened during night and merely because he belongs to the political party, he is roped in. There is no direct evidence to implicate him, it was contended.

4. It seems that even in the FIS, the name of the

petitioner herein is referred to. According to the defacto complainant, on hearing explosion, he opened the door and looked out. He had seen some of the accused, whose names are referred to in the first statement given to the police. The petitioner also is referred to in the FIS. The petitioner has criminal antecedents and is involved in few other cases of similar nature. Having considered these, I feel that this is not a fit case in which the benefit of pre-

arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner herein. Bail application fails and is dismissed. SD/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE R.AV

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2019 Same Parties Vishnu, vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas