Dismissed

Akhil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2556/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC, directing the petitioner to surrender for custodial interrogation as it is necessary for effective investigation, with bail reconsidered post-interrogation by the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to surrender for interrogation within seven days; application disposed with instructions for Magistrate to decide on post-interrogation bail or remand.

Akhil 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

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/12TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2556 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 574/2016 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 :

¶8

AKHIL

¶9

AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SUKU, PUTHUVALVILA VEEDU, NEDUMPARAMBU, NAGAROOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT :

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 041.

¶14

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 041.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

P.UBAID, J.

¶19

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

¶20

B.A.No.2556 of 2016

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2016

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.574 of 2016 of the Attingal Police Station, registered under Sections 447, 294(b), 323, 324, 354 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

The prosecution case is that this petitioner

¶26

and the first accused assaulted the defacto complainant at about 3 p.m. on 15.03.2016, and inflicted injuries on his body with the weapon with the knowledge of consequence that the injuries may cause death. A perusal of the wound certificate in the name of the complainant contained in the Case Diary shows that he had sustained a lacerated wound 3x1x1 cm over the left side of scalp, and the wound was sutured at the hospital. It is submitted that the

¶27

B.A.No.2556 of 2016 2

¶28

first accused has already been granted regular bail by the court below. If so, the petitioner can very well surrender before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation, and after interrogation, the request for bail can be considered by the learned Magistrate. In the nature of the allegations and materials required, I find that the petitioner will have to be interrogated in custody by the police.

¶29

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

¶30

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of

¶31

the materials including the case diary I find that the petitioner cannot be immediately released under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is felt necessary for the collection of some materials as part of effective

¶32

B.A.No.2556 of 2016 3

¶33

investigation. Still continued detention for days in custody is not felt necessary in the particular facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner will have to be interrogated in custody, to collect the necessary materials for a successful prosecution.

¶34

In the result, this application for bail is disposed of as follows:

¶35

a) The petitioner will surrender before

¶36

the investigating officer before 9 am. on any day within seven days from this date for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation.

¶37

b) After necessary interrogation, the investigating officer will produce the petitioner before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction by 4 pm. on the date of arrest itself.

¶38

c) If the learned Magistrate is satisfied that interrogation as part of investigation is over, and that there is no necessity of detention of the petitioner in custody, the petitioner can be released on appropriate conditions.

¶39

B.A.No.2556 of 2016 4

¶40

d) If it is found otherwise that the

¶41

petitioner did not in fact co-operate, or that his detention is necessary for a reasonable period, for effective investigation, and for collection of the materials which the petitioner did not disclose during investigation, the learned Magistrate can remand the petitioner to judicial custody. The learned Magistrate will have to take decision on the said aspect independently and judiciously, without being influenced or carried away by police report. In case of remand, the application for regular bail will be considered by the learned Magistrate judiciously, after necessary materials are collected as part of investigation.

Sd/- P.UBAID

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Akhil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil 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

G.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Smitha Vs State of Kerala

Salam Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Sareena Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh .P.Soman Vs the State of Kerala