Allowed

Jibi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2934/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowing a bail application filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 charged with offences under Sections 354B, 452, and 427 IPC. The court held that investigation was practically complete and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, thus granting pre arrest bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted pre arrest bail on bond of 25,000 Rupees each with two sureties, subject to reporting to the investigating officer periodically.

Jibi 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

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/26TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2934 of 2016 ----------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 389/2016 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3:

¶8

1. JIBI, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, CHAKKAKEL HOUSE, ADIMALY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SHAMI JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 30, CHAKKAKEL HOUSE, MANKUVA P.O., NELLITHODU, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALY POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 001.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA R.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------B.A No. 2934 of 2016

¶18

---------------------------------------

¶19

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.389/2016 of the Adimaly Police Station, registered under Sections 452, 354B and 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment they seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

On a perusal of the complaint in this case, I find

¶23

that the defacto complainant actually does not have any consistent case as to who exactly molested her. At the first part her case is that one guest, who came in the house of Joseph trespassed into her house and molested her. The said person is said to be one Benny. In the next portion of the complaint she says that the person who molested is one Jobby. Jobby is the second accused. These two petitioners are not seen implicated in the FIR. The complaint is practically against one Benny and one Jobby. They are not the petitioners herein. The complaint does not contain anything against these two petitioners. Even the complainant's version is that when the first accused

¶24

B.A No. 2934 of 2016 2

¶25

trespassed into her house, he was in fact prevented by the others. Then it is not known what is the offence committed by these petitioners. Anyway, the police report shows that the second petitioner is not in fact the accused in the crime.

¶26

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 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 and effective investigation.

¶27

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary and the report of the Investigating Officer, I find that investigation in the crime is practically over, and that the petitioners can be granted pre arrest bail. I find that the investigating officer has already questioned the material witnesses. In the nature of the allegations, and also the nature of the materials required for prosecution, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. I find that the police has gone a long way with investigation, and has already collected necessary materials. I do not find the necessity of detention of the

¶28

¶29

B.A No. 2934 of 2016

¶30

petitioners in custody for the purpose of investigation in the above circumstances. It will suffice that the petitioners are directed to report before the investigating officer periodically.

¶31

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 25,000/-₹ (Rupees twenty five 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.389/2016 of the Adimaly Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that the petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when required by him for interrogation.

¶32

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

P.A to Judge

¶35

Jibi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jibi 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

Basheer Vs the State of Kerala

Eldhose K.G Vs State of Kerala

Udyan T.N Vs State of Kerala

P.A Cheriyan Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Jinu Vs State of Kerala