Allowed

Selvaraj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Mar 2016Bail Appl./1279/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner charged with obstructing a Commercial Tax Officer. The court imposed strict conditions, including surrender within 10 days, execution of a bond of Rs. 1 Lakh, cooperation with investigation, surrender of passport, and restrictions on leaving India or influencing witnesses. Custodial interrogation was deemed unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions of surrender, bond execution, interrogation cooperation, passport surrender, and restrictions on movement and witness interference.

Selvaraj Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/26TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1279 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 811/2015 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SELVARAJ, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNASWAMY, KOOKKAMPALAYAM, THAVALAM PO, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶16

B.A.No.1279 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under S.438 of the Code of

¶20

Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail by the first accused in Crime No.811/2015 of Kozhinjampara police station. The said crime has been registered for offences punishable under S.341, 353 r/w S.34 of the IPC.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that while the Commercial Tax Officer and his party were engaged in routine checking of vehicles, the petitioner had intercepted the official vehicle of the Commercial Tax Inspector by parking his vehicle in front, so as to enable the driver of a lorry carrying chicks which was being inspected, to flee.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶23

B.A.No.1279 of 2016 : 2 :

¶24

petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he has absolutely nothing to do with the commission of the offence and he is a total stranger. It is asserted that there occurred an exchange of words between the petitioner as well as the Commercial Tax Officer when he had questioned the parking of vehicles in the middle of the road which ultimately ended up in the registration of the crime involving him as well. The attempt of the learned counsel was to distance the petitioner from the driver of the lorry who was found transporting chicks. At any rate, according to the learned counsel, none of the ingredients of the offence under S 353 of the IPC will be attracted.

¶26

The assertions of the learned counsel are

¶27

controverted by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner had intentionally deterred a public servant from carrying out his

¶28

B.A.No.1279 of 2016 : 3 :

¶29

official duty by blocking his official vehicle. If is further

¶30

asserted that as a result of the illegal acts of the petitioner, serious loss has been sustained to the state.

¶31

I have considered the rival submissions. Though the contumacious act of the petitioner, as alleged in the earliest records can never be condoned, the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioner, is a fact that is to be taken note of. There is also no specific allegation that the petitioner had anything to do with the transportation of chicks. These aspects are to be revealed from investigation. In view of the peculiar nature of the allegations and counter allegations, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is unwarranted and the petition can be allowed subjected to stringent conditions so that the interest of the prosecution also can be protected. In the result, the petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions:

¶32

B.A.No.1279 of 2016 : 4 :

¶33

i.The petitioner shall, within 10 days, surrender before the investigating officer and submit himself for interrogation. Thereafter, he shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. In that event, he shall be released on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶34

ii.The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m on next three consecutive days and submit himself for interrogation and also shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶35

iii.If the investigating officer requires the attendance of the petitioner on any further occasion than the days mentioned above, he may direct the petitioner to appear in writing.

¶36

iv.The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Magistrate concerned within a week from the date of appearance before the investigating officer.

¶37

B.A.No.1279 of 2016 : 5 :

¶38

v.The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses. He shall not meddle in any manner with the investigation.

¶39

vi.The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the learned Magistrate concerned.

¶40

vii.If any of the conditions above is violated, the Magistrate having jurisdiction is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law without referring the matter to this Court. The application is disposed of as above.

¶41

This application is allowed as above.

¶42

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.

¶43

¶44

[True copy]

¶45

P.A to Judge

Selvaraj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvaraj 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

Praveen A.R Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Valsarajan Vs State of Kerala

Sheela Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Lakshmi Vs the State of Kerala

Afsal Vs State of Kerala

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Kerala