Allowed

K.H. Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jun 2016Bail Appl./4222/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed pre-arrest bail for two accused charged in a suicide abetment case (IPC 306). The Court held investigation was complete and custodial interrogation unnecessary. Bail granted with conditions to report weekly and not leave police station or contact witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on bond with two sureties for 50,000/- each, directed to report weekly, not leave limits, and not contact witnesses.

K.H. Abdul Salam 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 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4222 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 449/2016 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶8

1. K.H. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.HYDROSE, KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, VATTEKKUNNAM KARA, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE.

¶9

2. K.H.BAVA KUNJU @ KUNJUMON, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.HYDROSE, KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, VATTEKKUNNAM KARA, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.A.RAJESH SRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.UBAID, J.

¶17

============================ B.A.No.4222 of 2016

¶18

============================ Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail under

¶21

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.449 of 2016 of the Kalamassery Police Station, registered under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

This crime relates to the commission of suicide by one Dinesh. It appears that when an exchange of words ensued between the deceased and the petitioners herein in connection with some labour dispute, some words used by the petitioners herein caused mental agony to the deceased. Felt insulted probably, Dinesh committed suicide at about 9.45 p.m. on 6.4.2016. On a perusal of the Case Diary, I find that investigation is practically over. It is not known on what material exactly Section 306 IPC was incorporated by the police during investigation. The crime was initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. As regards the essentials for a prosecution under

¶23

B.A.No.4222 of 2016 2

¶24

Section 306 IPC, the legal position stands well settled, that there must be some nexus between the alleged act of the accused and the commission of suicide by the victim. When there is no nexus between the alleged acts of the accused and the commission of suicide, a prosecution under Section 306 IPC is not possible. Here, Dinesh had his own reason to commit suicide. However, the police found out during investigation that there was some exchange of words between him and the petitioners herein previously, and so immediately they came to the conclusion that commission of suicide by Dinesh was abetted by these petitioners.

¶25

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.

¶26

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the

¶27

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

¶28

B.A.No.4222 of 2016 3

¶29

questioned the material witnesses. In the nature of the allegations, and also the nature of the materials required for 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.

¶30

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 50,000/-₹ (Rupees Fifty 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.449 of 2016 of the Kalamassery Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶31

a) The petitioners shall report before the

¶32

investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Wednesdays for a period of two months.

¶33

b) The petitioners shall not leave the

¶34

B.A.No.4222 of 2016 4

¶35

limits of the Kalamassery Police Station for a period of two months.

¶36

c) The petitioners shall not in any manner

¶37

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

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K.H. Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.H. Abdul Salam 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

Sreejith Vs State of Kerala

Binu Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Haris Vs State of Kerala

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

Jayaraj Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police