Disposed

Nazeer Manoli v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 May 2016Bail Appl./3455/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this pre-arrest bail application regarding a political clash involving assault on police, the High Court refused immediate release but conditioned bail on uncontested custodial interrogation. The Court mandated surrender for investigation and directed the Magistrate to release the petitioners on conditions once interrogation concludes, unless further detention is judicially warranted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to surrender for custodial interrogation; if investigation complete and no further detention needed, they to be released on conditions by the Magistrate.

Nazeer Manoli 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3455 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 330/2016 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 5 AND 7:

¶8

1. NAZEER MANOLI,S/O.SHAMMER, AGED 26 YEARS, MANOLI HOUSE, PUTHANNAGADI P.O,PERINTHALMANNA.

¶9

2. ALI V.P.,S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 32 YEARS, VALLIKAPATTO HOUSE, PUTHANNAGADI

¶10

P.O, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶11

3. SHAMEER BABU,S/O.KUNJAMINA, AGED 35 YEARS, THAVALENGAL HOUSE, PUTHANNAGADI P.O, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶12

4. NOUSHAD T.S/O.KUNJAMINA, AGED 35 YEARS, THAVALENGAL HOUSE, PUTHANNAGADI P.O, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶13

5. SHAMEER BABU

¶14

S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, AGED 37 YEARS, KIZHAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, PUTHANNAGADI P.O, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶15

6. JAFFAR

¶16

S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 28 YEARS, KOTTARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHANNAGADI P.O, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶19

STATE OF KERALA

¶20

(CRIME NO.330/2016 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION)REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 31.

¶21

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶22

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P. UBAID, J.

B.A.No.3455 of 2016

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2016

¶27

The petitioners herein seek pre-arrest bail under Section

¶28

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.330/2016 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 353 and 332 read with 149 IPC.

¶29

The prosecution case is that when the police party including the defacto complainant herein, intervened in a political clash involving two political fractions at about 6 pm on 22.04.2016 at Angadipuram, these petitioners and some other identifiable persons obstructed and assaulted the police officials, prevented the discharge of their official duty, and inflicted injuries on the body of a police officer. In the nature of the allegations and the nature of materials required for prosecution, I find the necessity of interrogation of the petitioners as part of investigation. Though continued detention in custody may not be required, the petitioner will have to surrender before the

¶30

¶31

B.A.No.3455 of 2016

¶32

investigating officer for interrogation. It is not known what injury was in fact sustained by the police officer. Any way, let the factual aspects be looked into by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. All the offences are triable by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶33

This application for pre-arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused are now released, it will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶34

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary I find that the petitioners cannot be immediately released under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners 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 petitioners will have to be interrogated in custody to collect the necessary materials for a successful prosecution. After necessary interrogation, the

¶35

B.A.No.3455 of 2016 3

¶36

petitioners can be released on appropriate conditions. The petitioners will have to surrender before the investigating officer for such interrogation. After necessary interrogation, the petitioners will have to be produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, and if the learned Magistrate is well satisfied that interrogation of the petitioners is over, they can be released on appropriate conditions. If it is found otherwise that the petitioners did not co-operate or took a defiant attitude during interrogation, or that detention of the petitioners is necessary for the collection of necessary materials which the accused did not disclose during interrogation, the petitioners 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.

¶37

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

¶38

a) The petitioners will surrender before the investigating officer before 9 am. on any day within seven days from this date for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation.

¶39

¶40

B.A.No.3455 of 2016

¶41

b) After necessary interrogation, the

¶42

investigating officer will produce the petitioners before

¶43

the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction by 4 pm. on the date of arrest itself.

¶44

c) If the learned Magistrate is satisfied that

¶45

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

¶46

d) If it is found otherwise that the

¶47

petitioners did not in fact co-operate, or that their detention is necessary for a reasonable period, for effective investigation, and for collection of the materials which the petitioners did not disclose during investigation, the learned Magistrate can remand the petitioners 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

¶48

¶49

B.A.No.3455 of 2016

¶50

judiciously, after necessary materials are collected as part of investigation.

Sd/-

P. UBAID, JUDGE

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

Nazeer Manoli v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazeer Manoli 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

Thankachan Joseph Vs State of Kerala

G. Dinesh Vs State of Kerala

P.C.Basheer Vs State of Kerala

Shabeer Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sajesh N. Vs State of Kerala

Sugathan Vs State of Kerala