The court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by a jeweller. Finding custodial interrogation necessary for investigation based on accused confessions, the court held it was not a proper case to invoke Section 438 CrPC.
Anticipatory bail petition dismissed with liberty to seek regular bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931
Bail Appl..No. 4682 of 2009() -----------------------------
PETITIONER:
C.CHANDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 50 YEARS, CHEMBRAVALAPPIL HOUSE, NHANGATTIRI, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT(S): STATE:
ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.9.9.09 IN CRL.M.A.5012/09
ADDL.R3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 5772 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------------ B.A.NO.4682 & 5772 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd December 2009
O R D E R
Petitioner, a jwellery owner filed
this petition under Section 438 of Code of
Criminal Procedure for pre-arrest bail anticipating his arrest contending that he has not purchased any stolen article and has nothing to do with commission of the alleged offences. It is contended that in August 2009, some police constables came to the jwellery shop of the petitioner and asked him to come to the office of the
second respondent and when petitioner reached the office of second respondent on
10/8/2009, he was informed that one Subramaniyam was arrested in crime alleging theft in Chelakkara police station
2
BA.4682 & 5772/09
and he is involved in several theft cases and Circle Inspector informed the petitioner
that 72 grams of gold shall be given by the petitioner as thondi article and unless he prepares gold ingots and hand it over to the police, he will be implicated in the crime and in such circumstances, anticipatory bail is to be granted. Petitioner subsequently impleaded Sub Inspector of police,
Vadakkanchery police station as additional respondent in B.A.4682/2009 on the allegation of anticipated arrest in a case registered in that police station also. Petitioner would contend that as police used to threaten the jwellery owner to produce gold ingots, Annexure-C government order was issued prescribing the procedure to be followed while effecting recovery of gold from
BA.4682 & 5772/09
3
jwellery shops and hence police cannot insist the petitioner to produce gold ingots, when he has not purchased any stolen article.
available the case diary and submitted that it is only based on the confession statement of the accused, petitioner was implicated as
an accused in the cases and confession statement of the accused who committed theft shows that he had sold the stolen gold ornaments to the jwellery shop of the
petitioner and based on his confession statement, the accused was taken to the shop of the petitioner and he identified the shop as well as the petitioner. It is submitted
that in such circumstances, for a proper investigation of the case, custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is necessary
4
BA.4682 & 5772/09
and hence anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
grant anticipatory bail as custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for proper investigation of the cases. In such circumstances, petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek regular bail.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
uj.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who alleged compulsion to purchase stolen gold as thondi articles.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary for the proper investigation of the theft cases involving the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C. Chandran
The State of Kerala
M. Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
