Allowed

Shine Madhu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jun 2016Bail Appl./4124/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice P. Ubaid allowed a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC for a petitioner accused of forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. The court found investigation practically complete and custodial interrogation unnecessary, directing the petitioner to report periodically.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail via bond with two solvent sureties for ₹30,000 each, conditioned on weekly reporting and local curfew for two months.

Shine Madhu 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 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/3RD ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4124 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 2267/2014 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

SHINE MADHU, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. MADHUSOODANAN, REMYA, MEENADU EAST, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶10

SRI.V.VINAY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. (CRIME NO.2267/2014 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION KOLLAM DISTRICT).

¶14

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

¶15

CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 572.(CRIME NO.2267/2014 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT).

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA. R.

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------B.A No. 4124 of 2016 ---------------------------------------

¶20

Dated this the 24^th day of June, 2016

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner herein seeks 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.2267/2014 of the Chathannoor Police Station registered under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The subject matter of the prosecution is that a passport obtained by the petitioner by using a forged document to show his date of birth. The date of birth shown in the passport is 29.5.1970, whereas according to the prosecution his actual date of birth is 29.5.1974. The petitioner obtained the passport in question on 7.1.1994. It was many times renewed, and by using this passport the petitioner had gone abroad on many occasions. Only very recently, the alleged forgery could be detected.

¶24

On a perusal of the police report I find that the police is not certain what exactly is the forgery in this case. The police is yet to detect and find out whether the original S.S.L.C

¶25

B.A No. 4124 of 2016 2

¶26

certificate was forged by the petitioner as regards the date of birth, or whether a bogus certificate was produced by him for obtaining passport. The police has not so far been able to detect the very material fact. Anyway, the passport in question has already been seized by the police, and the document which the petitioner produced along with the application for passport has also been seized. Now what is required is only a formal interrogation of the petitioner for which he can appear before the investigating officer.

¶27

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

¶28

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 petitioner can be granted pre arrest bail. I find that the investigating officer has already questioned the material witnesses. In the nature of the allegations, and also the nature of the materials required for

¶29

¶30

B.A No. 4124 of 2016

¶31

prosecution, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner 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 petitioner in custody for the purpose of investigation in the above circumstances. It will suffice that the petitioner is directed to report before the investigating officer periodically.

¶32

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his 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 his arrest in connection with Crime No.2267/2014 of the Chathannoor Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that

¶33

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Wednesdays for a period of two months.

¶34

b) The petitioner shall not leave the limits

¶35

of Chathannoor Police Station for a period of two months.

¶36

P.UBAID JUDGE

¶37

//True Copy//

¶38

Shine Madhu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shine Madhu 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

A.K.Babeesh Vs the Station House Officer, Kozhikode

K.H. Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

Jayaraj Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala

Alex Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs State of Kerala