High Court Kerala High Court

Vinu Chaco @ Vinner vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 3 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Vinu Chaco @ Vinner vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 3 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 476 of 2010(B)


1. VINU CHACO @ VINNER, S/O.ABRAHAM CHACO,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :03/02/2010

 O R D E R
                        K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                     ---------------------------
                      B.A. No. 476 of 2010
                 ------------------------------------
              Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010

                             O R D E R

This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime

No.1011 of 2009 of Varkala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

District.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that on 11.12.2009, the

deceased was murdered by the petitioner in the restaurant run by

him. It is alleged that the deceased had come to the restaurant

and there was some quarrel between the accused and the

deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

deceased left the place thereafter. But he was brought back to

the restaurant by the accused and he was brutally assaulted by

the accused. It is pointed out that there were 33 ante-mortem

injuries on the body of the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

scene of occurrence, according to the prosecution, is the

B.A. No. 476 of 2010 2

restaurant run by the accused. The restaurant was opened only

about one and a half months before the date of the incident. The

deceased was also running another restaurant in the locality. The

counsel submits that the deceased along with his henchmen came

to the restaurant run by the petitioner and the petitioner was

brutally assaulted by them. The petitioner sustained injuries and

he had to defend himself to save his life. It is also submitted that

the matter was reported to the police by the petitioner. The

petitioner was admitted in the hospital and he was arrested by the

police while he was in the hospital.

5. The petitioner had filed two Bail Applications on earlier

occasions and those applications were dismissed.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 12.12.2009 and he is in

judicial custody since then. The investigation has progressed

much thereafter.

7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the

petitioner, the nature of the offence and the present stage of

investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the

petitioner on stringent conditions.

B.A. No. 476 of 2010 3

8. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing

bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like

amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First

Class-I, Varkala subject to the following conditions:-

A) The petitioner shall report before the
Investigating Officer between 9 A.M. and
11 A.M. on every Monday, till the final
report is filed or until further orders.

B) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as
and when required.

C) The petitioner shall not enter into the limits
of Varkala Police Station for a period of
three months, except for complying with
conditions A and B.

D) The petitioner shall surrender his passport
before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate
of the First Class-I, Varkala within a period
of one week. If the petitioner does not
hold an Indian Passport, an affidavit sworn
to by him to that effect shall be filed before
the learned Magistrate within one week.

E) The petitioner shall not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence.

F) The petitioner shall not commit any offence
or indulge in any prejudicial activity while
on bail.

B.A. No. 476 of 2010 4

G) In case of breach of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to
be cancelled.

The Bail Application is allowed as above.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

ln