The High Court at Ernakulam allowed a bail application filed by four accused relatives. The court found the complaint under Section 353 IPC deficient in material specifics and granted pre-arrest bail with conditions.
Petitioners granted pre-arrest bail on surrender of bond with two sureties for 40,000/- each and undertakings to appear and remain within limits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/18TH SRAVANA, 1938 Bail Appl..No. 2847 of 2016 ---------------------------CRIME NO. 148/2016 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
1. SANU NAVAS, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE HUSSAIN, VADAKKEVEETTIL PARAMBIL, NETTUR P.O., ERNAKULAM.
2. SANEESH V.A, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, VADAKKEVEETTIL PARAMBIL, NETTUR P.O., ERNAKULAM.
3. SUBAIDA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.HUSSAIN, VADAKKEVEETTIL PARAMBIL, NETTUR P.O., ERNAKULAM.
4. SABITHA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.SHAREEF, VADAKKEVEETTIL PARAMBIL, NETTUR P.O., ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031, (CRIME NO.148/2016 OF PANANGADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT). 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER PANANGADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682506, (CRIME NO.148/2016 OF PANANGADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT LALIZA.T.Y.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
P.UBAID, J.
============================
B.A.No.2847 of 2016
============================ Dated this the 9th day of August, 2016
ORDER
The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1, 2,
5 and 4 respectively in Crime No.148 of 2016 of the
Panangad Police Station, 225, 353, 294(b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The defacto complainant in this case is the Sub Inspector of Police, Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam. The alleged incident happened when the Sub Inspector reached at the house of the petitioners to arrest an accused involved in Crime No.89 of 2015 of the Infopark Police Station. The petitioners herein are the relatives of the said accused. It is alleged that when the Sub Inspector proceeded to make search, the police party was prevented by the inmates of house, and the police party was even threatened and rebuked by the inmates including the petitioners herein.
B.A.No.2847 of 2016 2
including the complaint made by the Sub Inspector of Police, Infopark, I find something artificial in the complaint. The complaint does not contain any definite material for a prosecution under Section 353 IPC. The complaint does not show that the police party had seen the accused in Crime No.89 of 2015 in the said house, or that anybody had seen the said accused escaping from the said house. What is practically alleged is only obstruction to entry to the house. This will not by itself come under Section 353 IPC. That the Sub Inspector and the police party were threatened by the inmates also, will not come under Section 353 IPC. A specific direction was given to the Investigating Officer to report specifically whether the complainant had seen the accused in Crime No.89 of 2015 at the house of the petitioners, or whether anybody had seen the said accused escaping from the said house, or whether any criminal force was in fact used against the petitioners and the others in the alleged incident. There is no such report to the satisfaction of the court. What is at the most revealed is that when the police party reached at
B.A.No.2847 of 2016 3
the house of the petitioners, they prevented search by the Sub Inspector, and they also rebuked, and threatened the Sub Inspector. These things are not sufficient for a prosecution under Section 353 IPC. In the nature of the allegations and the material so far collected by the police, I feel it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Even without interrogation of the petitioners in custody, the required materials can be collected by the police. When the complaint itself is not specific and definite, containing the required elements under Section 353 IPC, it would be inappropriate and unjust to detain the petitioners, or to deny bail to them.
In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only)each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.148 of 2016 of the Panangadu Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;
B.A.No.2847 of 2016 4
a) The petitioners shall report before
the investigating officer between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Mondays for a period of two months
b) The petitioners shall not leave the
limits of the Panangadu Police Station for a period of two months.
c) The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.
Sd/-
P.UBAID, JUDGE
rkj
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted when the complaint lacks material elements for prosecution under Section 353 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SANU NAVAS
SANEESH V.A
SUBAIDA
SABITHA
STATE OF KERALA
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
