Allowed

Siyad H v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2719/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner was accused of dishonestly transporting excess scrap materials. The High Court allowed the bail application, dispensing with custodial interrogation and directing periodic reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹30,000 each, directed to report to the investigating officer on Saturdays and not leave the Harbour Police Station limi

Siyad H 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 P.UBAID

¶4

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

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2719 of 2016 () -------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 1074/2015 OF HARBOUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SIYAD H, S/O.HAMSA, 45 YEARS, AIYSHA MANZIL, IRAVUKADU WARD, MULLATH, P.O ALAPPUZHA - 688 002.

¶9

BY SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS.SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM CITY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶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

mbr/

¶15

P.UBAID, J.

¶16

- - - - B.A.No. 2719 of 2016

¶17

- - - - Dated this the 08^th day of June, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner herein seeks pre-arrest bail under

¶20

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No. 1074 of 2015 of the Harbour Police Station, registered under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The petitioner herein had purchased two tons of scrap materials from the Cochin Port Trust in an auction. The present complaint against him is that under the guise of transporting the scrap materials covered by contract, he transported an excess quantity of 1685 Kgs in the very same lorry.

¶22

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

¶23

B.A.No. 2719 of 2016

¶24

-2-

¶25

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.

¶26

It is a matter for decision on trial

¶27

whether such excess quantity was dishonestly taken by the petitioner herein. The petitioner has produced the copy of bill in the name of his brother, which shows purchase of 1685 Kgs of scrap materials. The petitioner's case is that this quantity purchased by the brother of the petitioner was also transported in the same lorry. This submission made by the learned counsel requires probe. In the nature of the allegations, and the materials so far collected, I feel that arrest or custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, and that even without such interrogation, necessary materials for a prosecution can be collected by the Police. It will suffice that the petitioner is directed to report before the investigating officer periodically.

¶28

B.A.No. 2719 of 2016

¶29

-3-

¶30

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 30,000/-₹ (Rupees Thirty 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. 1074 of 2015 of the Harbour Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that

¶31

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

¶32

b) The petitioner shall not leave the limits of Harbour Police Station for a period of two months.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Siyad H v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siyad H 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

Midhun R. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Saji Vs Sub Inspector of Police