Disposed

K.S.Sajan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2015Bail Appl./8657/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Kerala considered a request for pre-arrest bail by a fourth accused facing allegations of diverting allotted kerosene. The court noted potential prejudice to the investigation but permitted surrender before the IO, leaving the magistrate to decide on bail thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to surrender before the Investigating Officer; bail matter to be considered by the Magistrate.

K.S.Sajan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/22ND JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8657 of 2014 () -------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 1510/2014 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------

¶8

K.S.SAJAN AGED 54 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, CHAITHRAM NAGAR, MUTTEKKAD DESOM VENGALLUR VILLAGE, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO.1510/2014 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT).

¶12

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANNUTHY POLICE STATION THRISSUR DISTRICT-680651 (CRIME NO.1510/2014 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION THRISSUR DISTRICT.)

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV.SRI.R GITHESH

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

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

¶17

B.A.No.8657 of 2014

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2015

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The fourth accused in Crime No.1510 of 2014 of the Mannuthy Police Station for offences punishable under Section 16 of Kerala Kerosine Control Order, 1968 and Section 3 r/w Section 7(i)(a), (ii), (c) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is the applicant herein.

¶22

The prosecution case is that on 13.09.2014 at 1.30 p.m., 12,000 liters of kerosene transported in a tanker lorry was intercepted by the police attached to the Mannuthy Police Station. The first accused is the driver and the second accused is the person to whom the load was alleged to have been diverted with the connivance of the fourth accused, to whom the goods were despatched. The third accused is the owner of the lorry. The crux of the allegation against the fourth accused is that he had diverted kerosene allotted to him, for the purpose of unauthorised sale. Apprehending arrest, fourth accused has approached this Court seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶23

Heard. Perused the records.

¶24

B.A.8657/14

¶25

¶26

According to the learned counsel for the accused, kerosene allotted to the fourth respondent was sent from the godown of the Indian Oil Corporation at Ernakulam to be delivered at Thiruvananthapuram but had reached Thrissur, without his knowledge and consent. Evidently, the very fact that the vehicle was intercepted near Thrissur which was not on the route to Thiruvananthapuram is indicative of the fact that it was diverted. The question that arises is whether in the above backdrop, the custodial interrogation of the fourth accused is warranted. The article involved has already been seized. It is on record that the first accused-driver has given the confession statement implicating the third accused and to a certain extent the fourth accused. The item was expected to be delivered at Chaithram depot owned by the fourth accused. There are materials on record to show that one person from Chaithram depot had met the first accused-driver and instructed him to deliver at the company of the third accused. There are materials to indicate that the load was diverted at the instance of the fourth accused or a person sent by him who allegedly carried the pass. The identity of that person has to be

¶27

B.A.8657/14

¶28

¶29

revealed. Evidently, granting of pre-arrest bail to the applicant may prejudice the investigation.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to surrender before the Investigating Officer. The fourth accused is free to surrender before the police and in the event of his surrender, after interrogation he may be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate at the earliest. In the event of him filing an application for bail, learned magistrate shall consider the bail application preferably on the same day, in accordance with law, untrammelled by any of the observations contained herein.

¶31

The bail application is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶34

Sbna

K.S.Sajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Sajan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopalakrishnapillai Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Kunhuttan @ Ayyappan Vs State of Kerala

R.Mohan Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Subeesh Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar P.V. Vs State of Kerala

Rananson Vs State of Kerala