The Kerala High Court disposed of a pre-arrest bail application by directing the petitioner to surrender for interrogation to clarify his alleged role in extortion, after which the Magistrate would decide on regular bail.
The petitioner was directed to surrender for interrogation; regular bail application to be considered by the Magistrate after interrogation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2016/22ND ASHADHA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 4349 of 2016 () ------------------------------CRIME NO. 237/2016 OF MANKARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:
NOUFAL, S/O.ABOOBACKER,AGED 24 YEARS, POOCHENGAL KUNNATH HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI P.O., THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 306.
BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSCUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
P.UBAID, J.
============================
B.A.No.4349 of 2016
============================
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2016
ORDER
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.237 of 2016 of the Mankara Police Station, registered under Sections 342, 323, 383, 357 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act. He is the first accused.
B.A.No.4349 of 2016 2
the pretext of helping his friend, the petitioner herein advanced Rs.3 lakhs, but later the amount was divided among them, after the victim was released from custody. Things concerning the role alleged against the petitioner herein, including his vicious role in the alleged transaction, can be revealed only by his interrogation. Whether he had any vicious role in the alleged transaction, or whether he had received any share of the amount of Rs.5 lakhs extracted from the victim, are all matters that can be collected by effective interrogation in custody. Without such interrogation, the investigation cannot be completed. In the above situation, I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation. After such interrogation, the request for regular bail can be considered by the learned Magistrate appropriately.
In the result, this application for bail is disposed of as follows:
a) The petitioner will surrender before the investigating officer, if he so opts, between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on any day within seven days from this date for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation.
b) After necessary interrogation, the
B.A.No.4349 of 2016 3
investigating officer will produce the petitioner before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction before 4 pm. on the same day.
c) In case application for regular bail is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be judiciously considered and decided by the learned Magistrate on merits on the same day.
Sd/P.UBAID, JUDGE
rkj
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC should be granted given the ongoing investigation and the need for interrogation into the accused's alleged role.
Whether the petitioner should be directed to surrender for interrogation before consideration of regular bail can proceed.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Noufal, S/O.Aboolbacker
State of Kerala
P.UBAID
JUDGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
P.UBAID and JUDGE
Parties & counsel
