Disposed

Thankachan Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 May 2016Bail Appl./3314/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a pre-arrest bail application for kidnapping and extortion charges. The court directed conditional bail requiring surrender for custodial interrogation. Post-interrogation release or remand depends on the magistrate's satisfaction regarding investigation needs.

What did the court decide?

Conditionally: surrender for interrogation within seven days; post-interrogation release or remand at magistrate's discretion.

Thankachan Joseph 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

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2016/3RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3314 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 478/2016 OF KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

THANKACHAN JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.IYPE JOSEPH, PATHIKATTIL HOUSE, ARAKUNNAM P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 313.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB SRI.AKHIL K.MADHAV SRI.T.R.JERRY SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT :

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SHEEBA.M.T.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------B.A No.3314 of 2016

¶16

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

¶17

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.478/2016 of the Koothattukulam Police Station registered under Sections 323, 342, 357 and 506(i) IPC. Now investigation is proceeding under Section 365 IPC also.

¶20

The petitioner herein is a business man having some chitty business also. The prosecution case is that at about 9 am. on 6.4.2016 the petitioner and his men abducted the defacto complainant with the object of extracting the chitty amount due from him somehow, took him to an isolated place where he was manhandled by them, they made him stand with a lady, they took their photographs, and later intimidated him that these photographs will be used against him, if he is not return the amount due from him.

¶21

This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the custodial

¶22

B.A No.3314 of 2016 2

¶23

interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused is now released, it will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶24

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary I find that the petitioner cannot be immediately released under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is felt necessary for the collection of some materials as part of effective investigation. Still continued detention for days in custody is not felt necessary in the particular facts and circumstances of the case. The complaint shows that the complainant was made to stand with a lady for taking photographs. This means that the said lady had also some involvement in the alleged incident. It is not known whether she is made as accused by the investigating officer. Any way

¶25

let the facts be looked into by the learned Magistrate appropriately. The petitioner will have to be interrogated in custody to collect the necessary materials for a successful prosecution. After necessary interrogation, the petitioner can be released on appropriate conditions. The petitioner will have to surrender before the investigating officer for such

¶26

¶27

B.A No.3314 of 2016

¶28

interrogation. After necessary interrogation, the petitioner will have to be produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, and if the learned Magistrate is well satisfied that interrogation of the petitioner is over, he can be released on appropriate conditions. If it is found otherwise that the petitioner did not co-operate or took a defiant attitude during interrogation, or that detention of the petitioner is necessary for the collection of necessary materials which the accused did not disclose during interrogation, the petitioner will have to be remanded to judicial custody, and the request for regular bail will have to be considered by the learned Magistrate appropriately after substantial part of investigation is over.

¶29

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

¶30

a) The petitioner will surrender before the

¶31

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

¶32

b) After necessary interrogation, the

¶33

investigating officer will produce the petitioner before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction by 4 pm. on

¶34

¶35

B.A No.3314 of 2016

¶36

the date of arrest itself.

¶37

c) If the learned Magistrate is satisfied

¶38

that the interrogation as part of investigation is over, and that there is no necessity of detention of the petitioner in custody, the petitioner can be released on appropriate conditions.

¶39

d) If it is found otherwise that the

¶40

petitioner did not in fact co-operate, or that his detention is necessary for a reasonable period, for effective investigation, and for collection of the materials which the petitioner did not disclose during investigation, the learned Magistrate can remand the petitioner 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 regular bail will be considered by the learned Magistrate judiciously, after necessary materials are collected as part of investigation.

¶41

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

¶42

//True Copy//

¶43

Thankachan Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankachan Joseph 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

Gireesh K.R Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Ashik Abdul Rahim Vs State of Kerala

G. Dinesh Vs State of Kerala

P.C.Basheer Vs State of Kerala

M.V Mohanan Vs State of Kerala