[ad_1]
Kerala High Court
Vivek vs State Of Kerala on 17 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A. No.8122/25 1
2025:KER:54326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 8122 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1112/2024 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2025 IN Bail Appl. NO.6818 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
VIVEK
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.VALSAN,
PANANGADAN HOUSE,
VATTEKKAD DESOM, P.O.KODAKARA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680684
BY ADVS.
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL
SRI.BABU JOSE
SRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT
SRI.ATHUL POULOSE
SRI.AKHIL GEORGE
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031
SRI. C.K.SURESH, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.8122/25 2
2025:KER:54326
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.8122 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2025
ORDER
Petitioner seeks regular bail under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1112 of 2024 of Kodakara
Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under sections 333,
118(1) and 103(1) r/w section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused had, in furtherance of
their common intention, trespassed into the house of Sri.Sujith on 26.12.2024
and murdered him and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner
was arrested on 03.01.2025 and he has been in custody since then.
4. Sri.Gajendra Singh Rajpurohit, the learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner, though arrayed as the first accused, is totally
innocent and that he has no involvement in the crime. According to the
learned counsel, another crime was registered as Crime No.1113 of 2024,
wherein the original first accused in Crime No.1112 of 2024 was murdered, is
the accused in this crime and since two crimes have been committed, both for
murder, the prosecution case becomes doubtful. According to the learned
B.A. No.8122/25 3
2025:KER:54326
counsel, the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner from 03.01.2025 itself is
a sufficient ground to release him on bail, especially since the trial with the
accused in custody militates against the right to life and personal liberty of an
individual. The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is ready to
co-operate with the investigation as well as the trial and therefore
notwithstanding the earlier application having been dismissed, petitioner
ought to be released on bail. It was also submitted that, going by the
prosecution case, it is evident that petitioner would have at the most, acted in
exercise of his right of private defence and hence his further custody is not
necessary.
5. Sri. C.K. Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand
submitted that the first accused in Crime No.1112 of 2024 was originally one
Abishek, who was murdered, for which Crime No.1113 of 2024 was
registered and due to his death, the said Abhisek was removed from the array
of accused and the petitioner has been re-arrayed as the first accused.
According to the learned Prosecutor, the incident occurred on 25th
December, 2020 when the deceased had assaulted the accused herein. In
retaliation to the said incident, petitioner and other accused trespassed into
the house of the deceased on 25th December 2024, and dragged the
deceased and the petitioner stabbed him resulting in a fatal injury. The
Prosecutor also submitted that petitioner is involved in eleven other crimes
B.A. No.8122/25 4
2025:KER:54326
and is the leader of a criminal gang and releasing him would only result in
commission of further crimes. According to the learned Prosecutor, if the
petitioner is released on bail, none of the witnesses will come forward to give
evidence and the trial will be seriously prejudiced.
6. I have considered the rival contentions.
7. On 29.05.2025, the earlier bail application filed by the petitioner as
B.A. No.6818 of 2025 was dismissed by this Court. No change of
circumstances have been brought to the notice of the court other than the
continued detention till date.
8. Notwithstanding this being an application filed without any change of
circumstances, still, considering the contentions urged, this Court deems it
appropriate to consider the same. Petitioner has, as per the prosecution case
itself, along with other accused, trespassed into the house of the deceased
and attacked him in retaliation against an incident that occurred on 25 th
December, 2020. The incident that led to the murder of the deceased in the
present crime occurred on 25.12.2024. The investigation has revealed that
the dates were selected by the accused with the sole purpose to wreak
vengeance for an earlier incident that occurred four years ago on the same
day. All the accused came to the house of the deceased with an intention to
murder him and when the second accused, who initially held a knife, was
restrained by the brother of the deceased, the petitioner took the knife from
B.A. No.8122/25 5
2025:KER:54326
the deceased and stabbed him. The contention that the petitioner had acted
in exercise of his right of private defence is prima facie incorrect since the
accused had trespassed into the house of the deceased. It is also evident
that the second accused, who went along with the petitioner, carried a knife
indicating the intention to commit murder. The nature of injury inflicted is also
sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.
9. Having regard to the above circumstances, I am of the view that
considering the submission of the learned Prosecutor that if the petitioner is
released on bail, further crimes would be repeated, cannot be shrugged aside
as baseless. Further, taking note of the antecedents of the petitioner, the
apprehension of the prosecution that the witnesses will be terrified to give
evidence during trial, cannot be said to be misplaced as well. Taking note of
the entire circumstances including the nature of allegations, this Court is of
the view that the petitioner cannot be released on bail.
Accordingly this bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
B.A. No.8122/25 6
2025:KER:54326
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8122/2025
PETITIONER’S/S’ ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.1112/2024 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR DISTRICT DATED 26.12.2024
Annexure 2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2025
IN CRL.MP.NO.3226/2025 PASSED BY THE JUDL.
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
Annexure 3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2025
IN CRL.MC.NO.561/2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR
Annexure 4 ORDER DATED 29-05-2025 IN BAIL APPL.6818/2025
OF HIGH COURT
Annexure 5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2022
IN B.A.NO.8005/2025
[ad_2]
Source link