Allowed

Babu M.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jul 2016Bail Appl./3082/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam disposed of a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC for six accused in an assault case. Finding that investigation was practically complete and custodial interrogation unnecessary, the court granted bail with conditions regarding periodic reporting and restricted movement.

What did the court decide?

The petition for pre-arrest bail was allowed and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bond with two sureties for ₹30,000 each.

Babu M.S. Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2016/23RD ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3082 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 936/2016 OF CHANGANASSERY POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. BABU M.S.,

¶9

AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, MANAKKOLAM HOUSE, FATHIMAPURAM, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶10

2. MANU MOHAN,

¶11

AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, MANAKKOLAM HOUSE, FATHIMAPURAM, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶12

3. DEEPU,

¶13

AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, PARAYIL, FATHIMAPURAM, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶14

4. SINU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, CHERUKKAVUKUNNIL, FATHIMAPURAM, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶15

5. ABI,

¶16

AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.GOPI, PALLATTUMARAYIL, FATHIMAPURAM, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶17

6. JOMON,

¶18

AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, PARAYIL, FATHIMAPURAM, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.M.Y.VARGHESEKUTTY

¶20

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶21

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

¶22

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶23

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Msd.

¶25

P.UBAID, J.

¶26

============================ B.A.No.3082 of 2016

¶27

============================ Dated this the 14^th day of July, 2016

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail under

¶30

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the

¶31

apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.936 of 2016 of the Changanassery Police Station, registered under Sections 323, 324, 294(b), 308, 143 and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They are six accused in the crime.

¶32

The prosecution case is that at about 2.00 p.m. on 13.3.2016, these petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant, and inflicted injuries on his body with stick, with the knowledge of consequence that the injuries may cause death. On a perusal of the Case Diary, I find that the complainant had not sustained any serious injury in the alleged incident. It is submitted that the police has registered two counter cases regarding the very same incident as Crime No.934 of 2016 and Crime No.935 of 2016 One is under

¶33

B.A.No.3082 of 2016 2

¶34

Section 308 IPC, and the other is under Section 354 IPC. It appears that Section 308 IPC in this case was incorporated by the police on the basis of some hypothetical statement. The complainant's wound certificate shows that he had only some contusions over the fore arm, left elbow, and occipital region. It is not known how those injuries will cause death. What is at the most revealed by the prosecution records is, only an instance of assault under Section 324 IPC.

¶35

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.

¶36

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of

¶37

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. The investigating officer has already questioned the material witnesses. In the nature of the allegations, and

¶38

B.A.No.3082 of 2016 3

¶39

also the nature of the materials required for prosecution, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. 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 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. However, some other conditions are also felt necessary for bail.

¶40

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 ₹30,000/-(Rupees Thirty 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.936 of 2016 of the Changanassery Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶41

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Tuesdays for a period of six weeks.

¶42

B.A.No.3082 of 2016 4

¶43

b) The petitioners shall not leave the

¶44

limits of the Changanassery Police Station for a period of six weeks.

¶45

c) The petitioners shall not in any

¶46

manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶47

rkj

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

P.A. TO JUDGE

Babu M.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu M.S. 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

Noufal Vs State of Kerala

Vipin @ Manu Vs State of Kerala

Noufal Vs State of Kerala

Subair Kallekkekkal Vs the Administrator

Mohammed Hadil Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Geetha Rajendran Vs State of Kerala