Allowed

Saravanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 May 2016Bail Appl./2409/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court accepted an application for anticipatory bail in a rash and negligent driving case resulting in death. The court rejected claims of vicarious liability as inapplicable to criminal law unless statutorily provided, finding insufficient material to connect the petitioner to the crime.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within two weeks, execution of bond with sureties, and conditions regarding witness interference and availability for interrogation. Power of arrest reta

Saravanan Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MAY 2016/16TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2409 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 237/2016 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

SARAVANAN, S/O.SREENIVASAN, AGED 31 YEARS, LAKSHMI NIVAS, NEAR GHS, EDAPPAL P.O., VATTAMKUKLAM VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶16

B. A. No. 2409 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 6^th day of May, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This is an application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner herein is the accused No.2 in Crime No.237/2016 of Ponnani Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 304, 279 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4(1)(A), 21 of Mines and Minerals Development & Regulation Act, 1957.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a handicapped person and the owner of a lorry bearing Registration No.KL-51-A-6416. The said vehicle was entrusted with a duly licensed driver, who is arrayed in the crime as the 1^st accused. On 12.03.2016 at 3.30 a.m., the above vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused No.1 and the same knocked down 2 persons who were standing near the union shed, Thiruvaniyoor, resulting in their death. The prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner had given general instructions to the 1^st accused driver to operate the vehicle as he did and that he would shoulder the responsibility for the ensuing consequences.

¶21

B. A. No. 2409 of 2016

¶22

¶23

The learned counsel would submit that, the petitioner is a handicapped person and he has been arrayed as an accused with mala fide intend. He was not even present inside the lorry and if he is arrested and detained attributing vicarious liability for the act committed by the 1^st accused, it will result in grave travesty of justice. It is further submitted that there was no occasion for him to issue any direction to the 1^st accused.

¶24

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well. The offense alleged against the accused are mainly under section 304, 279 read with section 34 of the IPC . The principle of vicarious liability is not applicable to criminal cases unless provided for in the special statute. Except for the fact that the petitioner had issued some general directions to the 1^st accused driver , there is no other material to connect the petitioner .

¶25

After having heard the rival submissions, I am of the view that, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted and the anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶26

i). Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within a period of two weeks and after interrogation, he shall execute a bond for 25,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent

¶27

B. A. No. 2409 of 2016

¶28

¶29

sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest. In that event, he shall be released on bail in Crime No. 237/2016.

¶30

ii). The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶31

iii). The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating officer.

¶32

iv). The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶33

v). The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶34

vi). In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the officer concerned shall be empowered to arrest the petitioner as if no orders have been passed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE.

¶37

¶38

//True Copy//

¶39

P.A.To Judge

Saravanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan 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

Sanju @ Rehmathulla Vs the State of Kerala

Usha Ganesh Vs State of Kerala

Fahad Vs State of Kerala

Nizam Vs State of Kerala

Sanju Sathyan Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Sudheer.N.K Vs State of Kerala