Allowed

Deepu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC31 May 2016Bail Appl./2674/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a pre-arrest bail application in a theft case involving a jeep. The judge found that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as most investigation was complete and the dispute had civil elements involving the vehicle's sale.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre arrest bail on executing a bond with two sureties for 40,000/- each. Conditions include reporting every Friday, not leaving Munnar limits, and no contact with material witnesses

Deepu 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

TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2674 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 171/2016 OF MUNNAR POLICE STATION , IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

DEEPU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SASI, MARUTHUM KALLANIKKAL HOUSE, PAZHERIKANDAM P.O, IDUKKI -685 602.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ZAKEER HUSSAIN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -31.

¶12

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNNAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI -685 612.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R.REMA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.2674 of 2016

¶19

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶20

Dated this the 31^st May, 2016

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.171 of 2016 of the Munnar Police Station registered under Sections 379 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The crime relates to the alleged theft of a jeep. The petitioner herein is the husband of the registered owner of the jeep. It is alleged that he committed theft of the vehicle from the possession of the de facto complainant, who probably purchased it from somebodyelse. It appears that there is some dispute regarding the sale of vehicle made by the petitioner's wife, and her grievance appears to be that she has not so far received the amount of consideration. There is reason to believe that the actual transaction in fact involves civil consequences. Anyway, the vehicle was recovered during

¶24

¶25

B.A No.2674 of 2016

¶26

investigation, and it was later given to the complainant in interim custody under Section 451 Cr.P.C. In the nature of the allegations and the materials required for prosecution, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case and that even without such interrogation, necessary materials could be collected by the police.

¶27

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.

¶28

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary, I find that the substantial part of investigation is over, and that the petitioner can be granted pre arrest bail. I find that the investigating officer has already questioned the material witnesses. I find that the police has gone a long way with

¶29

B.A No.2674 of 2016

¶30

¶31

investigation, and has already collected necessary materials. I do not find the necessity of detention of the petitioner in custody for the purpose of investigation in the above circumstances. It will suffice that the petitioner is directed to report before the investigating officer periodically. However, some other conditions are also felt necessary for bail.

¶32

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 40,000/-₹ (Rupees Fourty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No.171 of 2016 of the Munnar Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that

¶33

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Fridays for a period of two months.

¶34

b) The petitioner shall not leave the limits of the Munnar Police Station for a period of

¶35

B.A No.2674 of 2016

¶36

¶37

two months.

¶38

c) The petitioner shall not have any

¶39

contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise till investigation is over.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

/True copy/

P.S to Judge

Deepu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu 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

Anson O.J. Vs State of Kerala

Prajith Rich Vs State of Kerala

Gopi Vs State of Kerala

P.J.Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Shalu T. Vs State of Kerala

Ameen V.Y. Vs State of Kerala