Vineeth s/o Vijayan v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2014-08-26
Court Decision / Holding: Bail Application is allowed. The petitioner shall execute a bond for ₹35,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount, surrender any passport, report before the Investigating Officer on Sundays between 10 and 11 a.m. once in a fortnight, refrain from any similar criminal activity, and not intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation. If the petitioner violates any condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. The decision is guided by the court’s reference to Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala regarding passport-related conditions.
Final Disposition: Bail Application allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vineeth s/o Vijayan

Respondents

State of Kerala through the Station House Officer, Poochakkal Police Station, Cherthala Taluk, Alleppey District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. J. Joseph Panikkassery
• Sri A. S. Sasidharan

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. R. Reema, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

Vineeth, the second accused in Crime No. 671/2014 of Poochakkal Police Station, approached the Kerala High Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The prosecution alleges that two accused trespassed into the de facto complainant’s house, seized her hand, and uttered obscene words; when her husband intervened, the accused beat him, constituting offences under IPC sections 447 (criminal trespass), 354 (uttering obscene words/woman’s modesty), 323 (hurt) and 34 (common intention). The petitioner argued that although the incident occurred on 29 June 2014, the FIR was registered only on 8 July 2014, with unexplained delay, suggesting possible personal animosity, especially since the first accused in the same crime had already been granted regular bail. The Public Prosecutor contended that the act against a woman is serious and does not warrant anticipatory bail. The court balanced the competing interests, noting the delay without a convincing explanation and the absence of weapon use, which reduces the likelihood of custodial interrogation. It allowed anticipatory bail, subject to stringent conditions, and guided by a prior decision (Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala) regarding passport-related bail conditions. The order ultimately grants bail with a bond of ₹35,000, two solvent sureties, passport surrender if applicable, routine reporting to the IO, prohibition from similar offences and witness intimidation, with cancellation of bail upon violation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant’s counsel submitted that although the alleged incident occurred on 29-6-2014, the FIR was registered only on 8-7-2014 and there is unexplained delay; this delay raises suspicion of personal animosity since the first accused has already been granted regular bail. It was urged that there is no weapon used and custodial interrogation is unlikely to arise; thus anticipatory bail should be granted with strict conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, emphasizing that the accused allegedly grabbed the complainant’s hand and the incident involved a woman; given the seriousness of the allegations, anticipatory bail should not be granted.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala	2009(2) KLT 712	Positive	The court relied on Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala to justify passport-related bail conditions and to guide merit-based considerations for release.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/4TH BHADRA, 1936** ## **Bail Appl..No. 6136 of 2014** **-------------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 671/2014 OF POOCHAKAL POLICE STATION , IN CHERTHALA TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.** **..** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:** **-----------------------------------------** **VINEETH, S/O. VIJAYAN, AGED 19 YEARS, AMBADIYIL VEED (EDAVAZHIKKAL), PANAVALLY VILLAGE, ULAVAIPPU P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY SRI.A.S.SASIDHARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **--------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, IN CHERTHALA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R.REMA** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **MBR/** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **B.A.No. 6136 of 2014** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 26[th] day of August, 2014 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 671 of 2014 of Poochakkal Police Station and apprehending arrest in the above crime, he preferred this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution allegation is that the accused, two in numbers, in the above crime after having trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, caught hold of her hand and uttered obscene words against her and while the de facto complainant cried out, her husband came to the spot and at that time, the accused beat her husband and thus, according to the prosecution, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 447,354,323 and 34 of I.P.C. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the B.A.No. 6136 of 2014 :-2-: learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the alleged incident had occurred on 29.6.2014, the crime was registered only on 8.7.2014 and there is substantial delay. According to the learned counsel, the said fact itself is sufficient to show that the petitioners are unnecessarily implicated in the above crime, since the husband of the de facto complainant is indebted to the accused connected with some monetary transactions. It is also the case of the counsel that the first accused in the above crime has been granted regular bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the accused caught hold of the hands of the de facto complainant, who is a lady, and therefore, considering the seriousness of the allegation, the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.No. 6136 of 2014 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it is a fact beyond dispute that though the alleged incident had occurred on 29.6.2014, the crime was registered only on 8.7.2014 and there is no convincing explanation for the delay, which, according to me, indicates that there is some substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the crime was registered due to personal animosity. The first accused in the very same crime was granted regular bail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially when there is no allegation that the petitioner had used any weapon, according to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not arise and therefore, this petition can be allowed, however subject to strict condition. In the result, there will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner connected with Crime No. 671 of 2014 of Poochakkal Police Station, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) B.A.No. 6136 of 2014 :-4-: with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the above crime and on following conditions:- - _(i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate at the time of executing the bail bond and if he is not the passport holder, he will file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport, he can approach the trial court for the release of the same and in case such an application is filed, the trial court is directed to consider the same on merit guided by the decision of this Court reported in_ _**Asok Kumar** v._ _**State of Kerala** [2009(2) KLT 712]._ - _(ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.671 of 2014 of Poochakkal Police Station, between 10 and 11 a.m. in every Sunday once in a fortnight._ - _(iii)The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence similar in nature and_ - _(iv)The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation or attempt to tamper the evidence._ B.A.No. 6136 of 2014 :-5-: If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is accordingly allowed. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ B.A.No. 6136 of 2014 :-6-: there will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner connected with Crime No. of 2014 of Police Station, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the above crime and on following conditions:- - _(1) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer at 11 a.m. on Saturdays once in every fortnight._ - _(2) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence similar in nature and_ - _(3) The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation or attempt to tamper the evidence._ If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail granted to him B.A.No. 6136 of 2014 :-7-: is liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is accordingly allowed. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ B.A.No. 6136 of 2014 :-8-: