Allowed

Sabu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jul 2016Bail Appl./3997/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a pre-arrest bail application wherein the Court found that the investigation was practically over and custodial interrogation was not necessary. The petitioners were granted bail on conditions including reporting and non-influence of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted with conditions to report periodically, not leave the station limits, and not influence witnesses.

Sabu 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

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2016/17TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3997 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 640/2016 OF KEEZHVAYPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1-3:

¶8

1. VARGHESE JOHN @ SABU, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE CHACKO, RESIDING AT PALLUTHESSREL HOUSE, KALLOOPPARA P.O., KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN CODE 689 583.

¶9

2. EAPEN J @ JOMON, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. JOHN EAPEN, VALLUONTHARAYIL HOUSE, KALLOOPPARA P.O., KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN CODE 689 583.

¶10

3. SONY VARGHESE, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. GEEVERGHESE CHACKO, PALLUTHESSREL HOUSE, KALLOOPPARA P.O., KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN CODE 689 583.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN, SMT.K.VIDYA.

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAYPUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM- 682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA. T.Y.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

P.UBAID, J.

¶18

--------------------------------------B.A No.3997 of 2016

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2016

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.640/2016 of the Keezhvaypur Police Station, registered under Sections 294(b), 326 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The prosecution case is that at about 3 pm on 30.4.2016 these petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant and his father Idikkula, and inflicted simple and grievous injuries on their body with the knowledge of consequence that such injuries may cause death.

¶24

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.

¶25

¶26

B.A No.3997 of 2016

¶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. On a perusal of the wound certificate in the name of Idikkula I find that he had sustained the following injuries:

¶28

i) Coronal cut of carpal bones and ulna.

¶29

ii) Zone 5 injury palmaris longus, flexor digitorum superficials & Flexor digitorum projundus.

¶30

iii) Segmental injury of median nerve.

¶31

iv)Ulnar nerve & ulnar artery injury.

¶32

The complainant Bibu had sustained only very simple

¶33

injuries. It is submitted that the first petitioner herein had also sustained grievous injuries in the alleged incident, and that the police has registered a counter case against the complainant herein and others as Crime No.641/2016. The police report shows that the said crime is also registered under Sections 294 (b), 341, 323, 326 and 308 IPC. The medical documents in the name of the first petitioner herein is made available by the

¶34

¶35

B.A No.3997 of 2016

¶36

learned counsel. It shows that the first petitioner herein had sustained fracture of his left orbital bone in the alleged incident. This is a case where persons on both sides sustained simple and grievous injuries. In the above situation it would be inappropriate to deny pre arrest bail to the petitioners. In the nature of the allegations, and also the nature of the materials required for the 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 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.

¶37

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 40,000/-₹ (Rupees forty 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.640/2016 of

¶38

¶39

B.A No.3997 of 2016

¶40

the Keezhvaypur 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 Thursdays for a period of two months.

¶42

b) The petitioners shall not leave the limits

¶43

of Keezhvaypur Police Station for a period of two months.

¶44

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

Sd/-

P.UBAID JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

Sabu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabu 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

Sajid Vs State of Kerala

Benny Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Firoz Khan Vs State of Kerala

K K Sachith Vs State of Kerala

Vineesh Vs Sub Inspector of Police,Museum Police Station