Dismissed

Midhun R. Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jun 2016Bail Appl./1577/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dismissed a bail application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner was one of many accused involved in an organised mob attack on police personnel, causing grievous hurt and property damage. The Court held that custodial interrogation was essential and refused bail due to the gravity of offences and expected witness interference.

What did the court decide?

The application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed; the petitioner may surrender to the investigating officer or Magistrate.

Midhun R. Nair 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 P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1577 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 331/2016 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:-

¶8

MIDHUN R. NAIR., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, KUZHIKATTU HOUSE, MALAYALAPUZHA, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

¶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.T.Y

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

P.UBAID, J.

¶16

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

¶17

B.A.No.1577 of 2016

¶18

============================ Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under

¶21

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.331 of 2016 of the Pathanamthitta Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 283, 294(b) and 333 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act. He is the fifth accused.

¶22

The police party led by the Station House Officer of Pathanamthitta Police Station was attacked by a mob of persons who were on protest against the Government, at about 12 noon on 29.01.2016. In the said incident of attack, many police personnel sustained injuries, and one Head Constable sustained grievous hurt. The mob also caused extensive damage to public

¶23

B.A.No.1577 of 2016 2

¶24

property, like fibre shields and helmets used by the police. Regarding the said incident, the police registered a crime against some named persons and some identifiable persons. The petitioner herein is one of the named persons, arraigned as the 5^th accused. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find it not proper and legal to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner. This is a case where organised attack was made on the police force engaged in law and order duty. Such instances will cause threat to the enforcement of law and order in the State. The police report shows that the petitioner herein is involved in so many crimes. Of the so many crimes, one is under Section 307 IPC, one is under Section 308 IPC, and one is under the Arms Act. I find that the petitioner will have to be interrogated in custody for the collection of necessary materials concerning him, and also the damage caused in the alleged incident. The persons who made organised attack on the police force cannot be granted pre arrest bail.

¶25

B.A.No.1577 of 2016 3

¶26

This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that, if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶27

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary and the report of the investigating officer, I find that some more things remain to be done by the police as part of investigation, and some more witnesses remain to be questioned. I find that the accused will influence or intimidate the witnesses if he is now granted pre arrest bail. However, if the petitioner so opts, he can surrender before the investigating officer or before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. After necessary interrogation, the request for regular bail can well be granted regular bail, can well be considered by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. In the particular facts and circumstances of

¶28

B.A.No.1577 of 2016 4

¶29

the case including the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged, and also the stage of investigation, I find that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief of

¶30

pre arrest bail can be granted.

¶31

In the result, this application for

¶32

anticipatory bail is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.UBAID, JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Midhun R. Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Midhun R. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunhikoya Vs State of Kerala

Umesh Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith Radhakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

Madanan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Siyad H Vs State of Kerala

Saji Vs Sub Inspector of Police