Allowed

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Feb 2014Bail Appl./402/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of three bail applications regarding pre-arrest bail for the petitioner, accused in offences under the Essential Commodities Act. The Court imposed conditions for surrender, investigation cooperation, and specific reporting schedules, referencing a Supreme Court precedent on bail cancellation.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on execution of bond for Rs. 25,000 along with two sureties for the same sum, subject to conditions of reporting and cooperation.

Manoj Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/15TH MAGHA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 402 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 781/2013 OF KORATY POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶7

ACCUSED NO.10/PETITIONER:

¶8

MANOJ AGED 37 YEARS

¶9

S/O.KUMARAN, NARANGATHI HOUSE, NAALUKETTU DESOM KORATTY, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD

¶11

COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶13

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

¶14

KORATTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV SREEJITH

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-2014, ALONG WITH BA. 648/2014, BA. 655/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶18

=========================

¶19

B.A.Nos.402, 648 and 655 of 2014

¶20

============================ Dated this the 04^th day of February, 2014

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petitioner is accused, in Crime Nos.781, 785 and 789 of 2013 of the Koratty Police Station and seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications. Case is that ration articles were seized from the supermarket of the first accused. Certain registers which the petitioner who is a retail ration shop owner was required to keep in his shop were also seized from the shop of the first accused. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, investigation revealed that the first accused is a binami of the petitioner and others. Ration articles meant for supply to the APL/BPL cardholders were sold in the shop of the first accused. Thus, petitioner and others committed offences under Secs.3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Petitioner is the 10^th accused in Crime No.781 of 2013 and 9^th accused in Crime Nos.785 and 789 of 2013.

¶24

Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. Petitioner is the owner of a retail ration shop. Office of retail ration shop owners is functioning in the building belonging to the first accused. Every week the petitioner is required to produce his

¶25

B.A.Nos.402, 648 and 655 of 2014

¶26

¶27

registers before the rationing officer. It so happened that the petitioner once left his registers in the office above mentioned. Petitioner is implicated in the cases only for that reason. It is also submitted that to the action initiated by the supply authorities, petitioner gave a reply as above which was accepted and the petitioner was allowed to continue with the retail ration shop.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor in response submitted that rice was seized from the shop of the first accused and that was identified as ration rice. Investigation is on as to whether all those persons who are shown to have purchased ration rice from the shop of the petitioner had actually purchased such articles.

¶29

Having regard to the relevant circumstances, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required also as no seizure is required to be effected at the instance of the petitioner. But the petitioner has to be interrogated by the investigating officer(s) concerned.

¶30

Resultantly these applications are disposed of as under:

¶31

(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the officer(s) investigating Crime Nos.781, 785 and 789 of 2013 of the Koratty Police Station on 11.02.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.

¶32

(ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer

¶33

B.A.Nos.402, 648 and 655 of 2014

¶34

¶35

concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply.

¶36

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

¶37

(iv) Petitioner shall produce all the relevant documents which are in his custody, control and possession and which the investigating officer(s) may require.

¶38

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

¶39

(vi) On such production the petitioner shall be released in the crime cases above mentioned on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:

¶40

(a) Petitioner shall report to the officer(s) investigating Crime Nos.781, 785 and 789 of 2013 of the Koratty Police Station on every Saturday between 3 p.m and 5 p.m for a period of two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶41

(b) Petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer(s) as and when required for interrogation.

¶42

B.A.Nos.402, 648 and 655 of 2014

¶43

¶44

¶45

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

¶46

(e) In case the petitioner violates any of of condition Nos.(a) to (d) it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in

¶47

P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶50

Sbna

¶51

True Copy

¶52

P A to Judge

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Antony Raj Alias Tony Vs State of Kerala

Sankaran. @ Retnakaran Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Pramod Vs State Ofkerala

Renganadhan Vs State of Kerala

Ajesh Vs State of Kerala