Kerala Court Closes Anticipatory Bail Plea Moved By Malayalam Actor Unni Mukundan, Notes Offences Alleged Are Bailable
The District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam closed the anticipatory bail petition moved by Malayalam film actor Unni Krishnan Mukundan, more popularly known as Unni Mukundan, today (May 31).Judge Honey M. Varghese passed the order after prosecution filed objection, stating that all the offences registered in the FIR are bailable.The actor was represented by Adv. Saiby...
The District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam closed the anticipatory bail petition moved by Malayalam film actor Unni Krishnan Mukundan, more popularly known as Unni Mukundan, today (May 31).
Judge Honey M. Varghese passed the order after prosecution filed objection, stating that all the offences registered in the FIR are bailable.
The actor was represented by Adv. Saiby Jose Kidangoor.
Background
Earlier this week, an FIR was registered against the actor at the Infopark Police Station by Vipin Kumar, who alleged that he was the professional manager of the actor. Subsequently, the actor had moved the Court for anticipatory bail.
Mr. Mukundan has been charged under Sections 115(2) [Voluntarily causing hurt], 126(2) [Wrongful restraint], 296(b) [Utterance of obscene songs or words in public places], 351(2) [Criminal Intimidation], 324(4) and (5) [Mischief] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The allegation against the actor was that he assaulted the de facto complainant in the basement of a DLF flat in Kakkanad. It is stated in the FIR that the actor slapped the de facto complainant on his face and held him down on the floor when he tried to run away. He again tried to beat the de facto complainant and broke his sunglasses. It was also alleged that the actor threatened to kill him.
In his bail application, the actor has taken the defence that all the allegations made by the de facto complainant are false. The defacto complainant had previously worked with the actor but due to unethical practices, his services were terminated by the actor. Moreover, the de facto complainant has been threatening the actor saying that his reputation would be damaged.