Vishnu, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jan 30, 2019

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1853216

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/1853216
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas
Decided On: Jan 30, 2019
Case Number: Bail Appl./393/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vishnu,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....accused in crime no.1181/2018 of peramangalam police station, for offences punishable under sections 341 and 307 read with section 34 of the indian penal code.2. the allegation of the prosecution is that on 16.12.2018, at 21.35 hours, when the defacto complainant was proceeding on his motor cycle, the petitioner herein waylaid him near a bridge. the second accused caught hold of his collar. thereupon the first accused took out a dagger and hit on his head. he sustained an injury and was taken to the hospital. fis was laid, crime was registered and the petitioner apprehending arrest, seeks bail.3. it was contended by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that in fact the petitioner was attacked by the defacto complainant and others and he sustained an injury on his head. he was admitted in the hospital and treated since it was agreed to be settled. no complaint was given nor any crime registered. to substantiate it, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a causality registration card, a copy of which was produced at the time of hearing, to show that the petitioner was referred to the govt. medical college hospital, thrissur on 16.12.2018 and was seen by the doctor on that day. he had sustained a lacerated wound 6x2x1 cm on the left forehead with abrasions over both knees. it was contended that this clearly shows that the petitioner was attacked and matter was agreed to be settled.4. i am not much impressed by the abovecontention since it appears that the defacto complainant had sustained a substantial wound on the forehead which is reported to be 10x1 cm scalp deep, which was a cut injury. an earlier incident in which the friend of the petitioner sustained injury is stated to be the motive. the weapon has not been recovered. the other accused are also absconding. having considered this, i feel that this is not a fit case in which the benefit of pre-arrest bail is not entitled to be granted. hence the bail application fails and is dismissed. sd/- sunil.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS WEDNESDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 10TH MAGHA, 1940 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1863/2018 of SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR CRIME NO. 1181/2018 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION , THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: VISHNU, AGED 20 YEARS S/O. MOHANAN, NELLIKKAL HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM, MUNDUR. BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921) SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY RESPONDENTS/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031. 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680545. SR.PP C.K SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner herein stands arrayed as the first accused in Crime No.1181/2018 of Peramangalam Police Station, for offences punishable under sections 341 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 16.12.2018, at 21.35 hours, when the defacto complainant was proceeding on his motor cycle, the petitioner herein waylaid him near a bridge. The second accused caught hold of his collar. Thereupon the first accused took out a dagger and hit on his head. He sustained an injury and was taken to the hospital. FIS was laid, crime was registered and the petitioner apprehending arrest, seeks bail.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that in fact the petitioner was attacked by the defacto complainant and others and he sustained an injury on his head. He was admitted in the hospital and treated since it was agreed to be settled. No complaint was given nor any crime registered. To substantiate it, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a causality registration card, a copy of which was produced at the time of hearing, to show that the petitioner was referred to the Govt. Medical College Hospital, Thrissur on 16.12.2018 and was seen by the doctor on that day. He had sustained a lacerated wound 6x2x1 cm on the left forehead with abrasions over both knees. It was contended that this clearly shows that the petitioner was attacked and matter was agreed to be settled.

4. I am not much impressed by the above

contention since it appears that the defacto complainant had sustained a substantial wound on the forehead which is reported to be 10x1 cm scalp deep, which was a cut injury. An earlier incident in which the friend of the petitioner sustained injury is stated to be the motive. The weapon has not been recovered. The other accused are also absconding. Having considered this, I feel that this is not a fit case in which the benefit of pre-arrest bail is not entitled to be granted. Hence the bail application fails and is dismissed. Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge

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