Disposed

Shabeer v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC25 May 2016Bail Appl./2675/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application for pre-arrest bail, the Court granted conditional bail pending investigation, directing the petitioners to surrender for interrogation. Bail depends on the Magistrate's satisfaction regarding the completion of interrogation and the necessity of continued detention.

What did the court decide?

Conditional bail granted; petitioners to surrender for interrogation; release or remand contingent on Magistrate's decision post-interrogation.

Shabeer Vs Sub Inspector of Police — 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 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2675 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 46/2016 OF NILESWAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SHABEER, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ZUBAIR, RESIDING AT KUNNUMAL HOUSE, NILESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MOHAMMED N.P, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT AFSAL MANZIL, THAIKADAPURAM POST, NILESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NILESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671 121.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA, (RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.2675 of 2016

¶20

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶21

Dated this the 25^th May, 2016

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.46 of 2016 of the Nileswar Nagar Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are the accused Nos.2 and 5.

¶24

The prosecution case is that these petitioners and the co-accused assaulted the de facto complainant on political grounds at about 8.15 p.m on 21.1.2016 and inflicted injuries on his body with weapons, with the knowledge of consequence that the injuries may cause death.

¶25

This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused

¶26

B.A No.2675 of 2016

¶27

¶28

are now released, they will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation. It is submitted that the accused Nos.1 and 4 were arrested by the police as part of investigation and they were later granted bail. The learned counsel submits that there is no allegation of any overt act against these petitioners. The factual aspects will be looked into by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. It is also submitted that this a simple case of assault, which will not in any circumstance come under Section 308 I.P.C. Let those aspects also be considered by the court below appropriately.

¶29

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary, I find the necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioners for collecting some materials for the prosecution. After necessary interrogation, the petitioners will have to be produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, and if the learned Magistrate is well satisfied that interrogation of the petitioners is over, they can be released on appropriate conditions. If it is found otherwise that the petitioners did not co-operate or took a

¶30

B.A No.2675 of 2016

¶31

¶32

defiant attitude during interrogation, or that detention of the petitioners is necessary for the collection of necessary materials which the accused did not disclose during interrogation, the petitioners will have to be remanded to judicial custody, and the request for regular bail will have to be considered by the learned Magistrate appropriately after substantial part of investigation is over .

¶33

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

¶34

a) The petitioners will surrender before

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

c) If the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the interrogation as part of investigation is over, and that there is no necessity of detention of the

¶38

B.A No.2675 of 2016

¶39

¶40

petitioners in custody, the petitioners can be released on appropriate conditions.

¶41

d) If it is found otherwise that the petitioners did not in fact co-operate, or that their detention is necessary for a reasonable period, for effective investigation, and for collection of the materials which the petitioners did not disclose during investigation, the learned Magistrate can remand the petitioners 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.

¶42

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE

¶43

¶44

/True copy/ P.S to Judge

Shabeer v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabeer v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Thankachan Joseph Vs State of Kerala

G. Dinesh Vs State of Kerala

P.C.Basheer Vs State of Kerala

Nazeer Manoli Vs State of Kerala

Sajesh N. Vs State of Kerala

Sugathan Vs State of Kerala