Disposed

Jaladharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2798/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a bail application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., holding that immediate release is inappropriate as custodial interrogation is necessary for the collection of materials to conduct an effective investigation. The petitioners were directed to surrender for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer within seven days for custodial interrogation; production before Magistrate post-interrogation;

Jaladharan 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

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/16TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2798 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 813/2016 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 :

¶8

1. JALADHARAN AGED 53 YEARS, S/O GOPI, KALLUMMOOTTIL VEEDU, MARU SOUTH MURI, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶9

2. BABY AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. SETHU, POOMUGHATHU VEEDU, CHERIAZHEEKKAL P.O., ALAPPADU MURI, KARUNAGAPALLY.

¶10

3. DEEPU AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. MADHUPALAN, NELLUMMOOTTIL, CHERIAZHEEKKAL P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI SRI.V.N.KIRAN LAL

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY).

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-06-2016, ALONG WITH BA. 3771/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

P.UBAID, J.

¶18

============================ B.A.Nos.2798 & 3771 of 2016

¶19

============================ Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioners in B.A.No.2798 of 2016 is the

¶22

accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No. 813 of 2016 of the Karunagapally Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 323, 325, 452, 354 and 354B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,and the petitioner in B.A.No.3771 of 2016 is the 4^th accused in the said Crime. On the apprehension of arrest, they seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

The prosecution case is that the petitioners trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant assaulted her, and made an attempt to molest her at about 1.30 p.m. on 06.03.2016. It appears that the petitioners seek pre arrest bail because of the allegations under Section 354 IPC and under Section 452 IPC. What is punishable under Section 452 IPC is only house

¶24

B.A.Nos.2798 & 3771 of 2016 2

¶25

trespass with preparation to cause hurt. A mere house trespass with intention to cause hurt will come only under Section 451 IPC is bailable. It is also well settled that a mere assault on a woman will not by itself come under Section 354 IPC. I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the learned Magistrate for regular bail. However, the petitioners will have to be interrogated by the Investigating Officer for the collection of some necessary materials concerning them. After such interrogation, the request for bail can be considered by the learned Magistrate, who will examine the case records thoroughly, and see whether this is in fact a case coming under Section 354 IPC, or only a case of assault on a woman. Anyway, let appropriate decision be taken by the learned Magistrate.

¶26

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 are now released, they will definitely obstruct the proper

¶27

B.A.Nos.2798 & 3771 of 2016 3

¶28

and effective investigation.

¶29

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of

¶30

the materials including the case diary I find that the petitioners cannot be immediately released under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is felt necessary for the collection of some materials as part of effective investigation. The petitioners will have to be interrogated in custody for the collection of necessary materials for a successful prosecution. The petitioners will have to surrender before the investigating officer for such interrogation. After necessary interrogation, the petitioners will have to be produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶31

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

¶32

a) The petitioners will surrender before

¶33

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

¶34

B.A.Nos.2798 & 3771 of 2016 4

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

d) If it is found otherwise that the

¶38

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

¶39

B.A.Nos.2798 & 3771 of 2016 5

¶40

regular bail will have to be considered and decided

¶41

by the learned Magistrate judiciously on the same

day.

Sd/-

P.UBAID

JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Jaladharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaladharan 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

Viswanathan K. Vs the State of Kerala

A. Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Shaji.a. Vs State of Kerala

Shahitha Vs State of Kerala

Latha Komalan @ Latha Vs State of Kerala

Dileep Kumar Vs State of Kerala