Dismissed

Sathish Kumar.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Feb 2014Bail Appl./721/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for offences under IPC Sections 195A and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Kerala Police Act, the court rejected anticipatory bail. The court directed surrender for interrogation and mandated strict procedural guidelines for arrest and production before the magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied. Directions issued for surrender for interrogation and compliance with arrest/procedure requirements if investigation extends or arrest warrants are issued.

Sathish Kumar.P 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

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/17TH MAGHA, 1935

¶5

BAIL APPL..NO. 721 OF 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 30/2014 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION , KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.2:

¶8

SATHISH KUMAR.P AGED 50 YEARS

¶9

S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, MADHURAMKAI, UPPILKAI P.O. PUTHUKKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT PIN: 671 314.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR SRI.A.D.SURESH BABU

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN: 682 031.

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI SHIBU JOSEPH

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH B.A. NO.870 OF 2014 ON 06.02.2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶17

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

¶18

B.A. Nos.721 & 870 of 2014

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 06^th day of February, 2014

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

These applications are preferred by accused 2 and 1, respectively in Crime No.30 of 2014 of the Ambalathara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 195A and 506 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.118(d) of the Kerala Police Act. Petitioners apprehend arrest.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications. It is submitted that the 1^st accused is also involved in Crime Nos.786 of 2012, 454 of 2013 and 257 of 2013, all for the offence under Sec.376 of the IPC on the allegation that he had forcible sexual intercourse with the students who attended his tuition class on various dates.

¶24

Crime Nos.786 of 2012 and 454 of 2013 were quashed by this Court, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners on the de facto complainants in those crimes reporting to this Court that no such incidents had occurred. While so, it is

¶25

B.A. Nos.721 & 870 of 2014

¶26

-: 2 :-

¶27

alleged, on the relevant day certain persons (allegedly the petitioners) threatened the de facto complainant in Crime No.30 of 2014 and others against proceeding with Crime No.257 of 2013. Thereon the Ambalathara police have registered Crime No.30 of 2014 for the offences first above mentioned. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required.

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioners argued that even if the whole case is accepted, no offence under Sec.195A of the IPC is made out and other offences alleged against the petitioners are bailable. It is submitted that to attract Sec.195A of the IPC, threat must be to the person who is a witness in the case to prevent him from giving evidence. According to the learned counsel, alleged threat made in this case is not to any witness in Crime No.257 of 2013.

¶29

Even if the said argument of the learned counsel is accepted so far the threat against the de facto complainant in Crime No.30 of 2013 is concerned, as he is not a witness in Crime No.257 of 2103, on going through the first information statement

¶30

B.A. Nos.721 & 870 of 2014

¶31

-: 3 :-

¶32

given by the de facto complainant (in Crime No.30 of 2013) I find that he has also reported about his aunt who is a witness in Crime No.257 of 2103 and her daughter who is the victim in Crime No.257 of 2013 being threatened either through telephone or through letter as if it is sent from the Women's Commission. If that threat is by the petitioners, then prima facie, Sec.195A of the IPC would be attracted since the aunt of the de facto complainant and her daughter are witnesses in Crime No.257 of 2013.

¶33

Learned counsel submitted that there is no material to show that the alleged phone calls or letter were at the instance of the petitioners.

¶34

Certainly, that is a matter which the Investigating Officer has to look into. For that interrogation of the petitioners is required. At this stage this Court cannot say that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. That should depend upon the facts of the case, result of interrogation of the petitioners, etc. It may not also be necessary that the petitioners are arrested immediately after they are interrogated. May be, the investigating Officer has to collect further materials as regards

¶35

B.A. Nos.721 & 870 of 2014

¶36

-: 4 :-

¶37

involvement of the petitioners. These matters the investigating Officer has to consider. In the circumstances, request for anticipatory bail cannot be allowed. At the same it is necessary to issue directions.

¶38

The applications are disposed of as under:

¶39

(i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.30 of 2014 of the Ambalathara Police Station on 13.02.2014 at about 10.00 a.m for interrogation.

¶40

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

¶41

(iii) In case of arrest at any point of time, the petitioners shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶42

(iv) It is open to the petitioners to move application for bail before the learned magistrate with intimation given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned, at least three working days in advance.

¶43

B.A. Nos.721 & 870 of 2014

¶44

-: 5 :-

¶45

(v) In case the Investigating Officer wants custody of the petitioners for interrogation, it is open to him to move application before the learned magistrate.

¶46

(vi) If any such application(s) is preferred, learned magistrate shall dispose of the application(s) as early as possible having regard to the relevant circumstances including the necessity for custody of the petitioners.

¶47

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶48

vsv

Sathish Kumar.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathish Kumar.P 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thankan Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Sasidharan Achary Vs State of Kerala

Sudheer.v Vs State of Kerala

Pratheesh A.R. Vs State of Kerala

Shyam Mohan A.M @ Shyam Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Habeeb Vs State of Kerala