Mr.Vipin @ Lal v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 7832 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 656/2015 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT ---------------- PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
-------------------------------------------- MR.VIPIN @ LAL, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT VIPIN VIHAR, CHERRIKONAM, KANNANALLOOR.P.O., THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT/STATE:
------------------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THROUGH THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
----------------------------- Bail Appl. No.7832 of 2015 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December 2015
O R D E R
Bail application filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.656 of 2015 of Kottiyam Police station registered for the offences punishable under Secs.341, 323, 324, 325 and 308 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case in brief is that, on 28.03.2015 at about 10.15 p.m., the petitioner along with others waylaid the motorcycle on which the defacto complainant and another person were travelling. Thereafter, there was a quarrel between the accused and the defacto complainant. The accused persons attacked the defacto complainant with knife and granite piece causing injury on the face and forehead.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The wound certificate appended to the case diary shows that the defacto complainant sustained
Bail Appl. No.7832 of 2015 2 depressed fracture of frontal bone causing brain injury. The Materials in the case diary do not prompt me to consider the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner favourably.
In the result, the bail application is dismissed. Sd/- A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE / True Copy / NS/16/12/2015 P.A. To Judge