High Court dismissed pre-arrest bail application. Court directed petitioner to surrender for interrogation by investigating officer before considering bail, holding that investigation cannot be completed without such interrogation.
Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation; bail to be considered by Magistrate after interrogation.
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 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 3004 of 2016 () ------------------------------CRIME NO. 707/2015 OF WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, TRISSUR DISTRICT
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4:
NIJIL BABU AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.BABU, MANGATTU HOUSE, THOZHUPADAM P.O, PARAKKAD, METHUKU, CHELAKKARA, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SMT.M.A.FELICIA
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031 (CRIME NO. 707/2015 OF WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT)
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 6805825, (CRIME NO. 707/2015 OF WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT)
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R. REMA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
P. UBAID, J.
B.A.No.3004 of 2016
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the 4th accused in Crime No.707/2015 of the Wadakkanchery Police Station, registered under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC. He seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial
harassment.
28.07.2015, the petitioner and the others committed theft of some gold ornaments from the house of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the first accused actually committed the theft,
and the others guarded the scene. In the nature of the allegations, I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioner to
surrender before the investigating officer for necessary interrogation. Without such interrogation for the collection of materials concerning him, his complicity in the alleged incident,
and also the properties stolen, investigation cannot be completed. After such interrogation, the request for bail can be considered by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. The
2
B.A.No.3004 of 2016
person, who guarded the scene is also equally liable with the person who actually committed theft. Any way, let the request for bail be appropriately considered by the learned Magistrate after interrogation.
In the result, this bail application is disposed of as follows:
a) The petitioner will surrender before the investigating
officer, if he so opts, between 9 am and 10 am on any day within seven days from this date for interrogation.
b) After interrogation, the investigating officer will produce the petitioner before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction on the same day, before 4 pm.
c) In case application for regular bail is filed, the same shall
be judiciously considered and decided on merits by the learned Magistrate on the same day.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE
sd // True Copy // P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant pre-arrest bail to an accused accused of theft before interrogation.
Whether directing surrender for interrogation is appropriate in theft cases.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
NIJIL BABU
STATE OF KERALA
P. UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
