Allowed

Santhosh G. Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2014Bail Appl./3243/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala is considering a bail application by an accused facing charges of assault and unlawful assembly. The court notes a discrepancy in the accusation and a previous direction for re-investigation. It grants interim bail requiring surrender for non-custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Warrant issued requiring surrender by June 16, 2014, for non-custodial interrogation and subsequent bail on bond with strict reporting and attendance conditions.

Santhosh G. Nair Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3243 of 2014 (A)

¶6

[CRIME NO. 354/2005 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, CRIME NO.39/CR/2008 OF C.B.C.I.D, H.H.W.I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM]

¶7

APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

SANTHOSH G. NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR, SANDHYA BHAVAN, MOOLAYAM, ALIYAD P.O, VANJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS.SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Prv.

¶15

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J

¶16

B.A.No.3243 of 2014

¶17

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2014

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.354 of 2005 of the Venjaramoodu Police Station (re-registered by the CBCID, HHW-I, Thiruvananthapuram Unit as Crime No.39/CR/2008) for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 349, 427 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 19.05.2005 at about 08.30 p.m., the petitioner and others attacked the de facto complainant with sword and other deadly weapons. Investigation by the Crime Branch revealed that the petitioner is actively involved in the incident.

¶21

Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. Petitioner is an employee of the Kerala University. Though the petitioner was arrayed as accused by the local police, their investigation revealed that the petitioner is not involved. Thereon, the de facto complainant filed W.P.(C).No.24027 of 2007 in this Court for a direction for proper investigation. In the

¶22

B.A.No.3243 of 2014

¶23

¶24

meantime the police submitted final report in the JFMCNedumangadu without implicating the petitioner as accused. Learned magistrate took the case on file as C.P.No.241 of 2007. Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court directing investigation by the Crime Branch. It is accordingly that the Crime Branch re-registered the case. Learned counsel invites my attention to Annexure-A stated to be photocopy of statement allegedly given by the de facto complainant and recorded by the learned magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the Crime Branch. Learned counsel also invites my attention to Page-5 of the aforesaid statement where according to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant specifically stated that the petitioner has not caused any hurt to the de facto complainant.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor, in response has submitted that investigation revealed involvement of the petitioner also and he is required to be questioned. It is submitted that in the statement of one of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and who is said to have been present with the de facto complainant at the time of the incident, there is reference to involvement of the

¶26

B.A.No.3243 of 2014

¶27

¶28

petitioner.

¶29

Having regard to all relevant circumstances stated above, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. At the same time, he has to be questioned by the investigating agency. He has to co-operate with the investigation.

¶30

Application is disposed of as under:

¶31

(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.39/CR/2008 on 16.06.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.

¶32

(ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time and place as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply.

¶33

(iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with investigation of the

¶34

case.

¶35

(iv) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶36

(v) On such production, the petitioner shall be released on bail, (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand

¶37

B.A.No.3243 of 2014

¶38

¶39

only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:

¶40

(a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

¶41

(b) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case on every alternate Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.

¶42

¶43

(d) Petitioner shall not, during the period of this bail get involved in any offence.

¶44

(e) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶45

(vi) It is made clear that in case any of condition Nos. (b) to (e) is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned magistrate (until committal of the case if any, and thereafter, of the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR

¶46

B.A.No.3243 of 2014

¶47

¶48

2006 Supreme Court 100).

¶49

(vii) It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the investigating officer questioning the petitioner and effecting recoveries if any as provided under the law on the information if any given by the petitioner.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶52

¶53

/True Copy/

¶54

P.A. to Judge

Santhosh G. Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh G. Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala

Rejin Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar @ Wilson Vs State of Kerala

Pradeepkumar Vs State of Kerala

Jomon @ Jomon Chandy Vs State of Kerala

Jinu Vs State of Kerala