Dismissed

Kunhikoya v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2750/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram High Court denied immediate pre arrest bail and directed the petitioner to surrender within seven days for custodial interrogation as investigation requires collection of materials. Regular bail consideration by the Magistrate is contingent on post-interrogation necessity.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation before investigating officer within seven days; Regular bail consideraible after interrogation.

Kunhikoya 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 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2750 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 119/2016 OF VENGARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

KUNHIKOYA

¶9

S/O.KOYAKUTTY, AGED 70 YEARS, ATTEERITHODI HOUSE, PARAPPUR, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE S.I OF POLICE, VENGARA POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.UBAID, J.

¶17

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

¶18

B.A.No.2750 of 2016

¶19

============================ Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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.119 of 2016 of the Vengara Police Station, registered under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 7 and 4(1)(a) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Regulation Act.

¶22

It is alleged that the petitioner was found possessing some gas cylinders in his house for illicit gas filling business, and supply of such gas to autorickshaw drivers. In the nature of the allegations and circumstances, I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate for regular bail.

¶23

B.A.No.2750 of 2016 2

¶24

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

¶25

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of 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 investigation. The petitioner will have to be interrogated in custody for the collection of necessary materials for a successful prosecution. The petitioner will have to surrender before the investigating officer for such interrogation. After necessary interrogation, the petitioner will have to be produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶26

In the result, this application for bail is

¶27

B.A.No.2750 of 2016 3

¶28

disposed of as follows:

¶29

a) The petitioner will surrender before

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

c) If the learned Magistrate is

¶33

satisfied that the 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.

¶34

d) If it is found otherwise that the

¶35

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

¶36

B.A.No.2750 of 2016 4

¶37

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 have to be considered and decided by the learned Magistrate judiciously on the same day.

Sd/P.UBAID, JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Kunhikoya v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhikoya 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

Jaladharan Vs State of Kerala

Shahitha Vs State of Kerala

Latha Komalan @ Latha Vs State of Kerala

Nissar Vs State of Kerala

Umesh Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith Radhakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala