Bench disposed of pre-arrest bail application in a serious dacoity case, directing petitioner to surrender for interrogation instead of granting bail, deferring final bail decision to the Magistrate.
Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation; bail denied pending interrogation by Magistrate.
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
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 5088 of 2016
CRIME NO. 177/2016 OF SULTHANBATHERY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD
PETITIONER(S)/EXPECTED TO BE MADE ACCUSED:
LINTO KURIAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.KURIAN, KARAKONAL HOUSE, MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULTHANBATHERY, PIN: 682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
P. UBAID, J
B.A.No.5088 of 2016
Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2016
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.177/2016 of the Sulthanbathery Police Station, registered under Sections 365, 395 and 120B IPC. He is the 6th accused in the crime. This is
a serious case of dacoity involving an 'Innova' car and a huge amount of Rs.35 Lakhs. There are altogether 15 accused in the crime. Of them, many could be arrested by the police during investigation, and they are still in judicial custody. The petitioner herein is said to be one of the persons, who actively participated in the alleged act of dacoity. In the nature of the allegations, I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer for necessary interrogation. I am not inclined to release him under Section 438 Cr.P.C. His interrogation for the collection of materials concerning the exact role and complicity of each of the accused, the exact identity and details of each of the accused,
2
B.A.Nos.5088 of 2016
the circumstance in which the alleged offence was committed, whether the petitioner herein had received share of the amount, etc., is felt necessary. After such interrogation, appropriate decision on the request for bail can be taken by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction.
In the result, this petition is disposed of as follows:
a) The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer, if he so opts, between 9 am and 10 am on any day within seven days from this date for necessary interrogation.
b) After interrogation, the investigating officer will produce the petitioner before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, as the case may be, before 4 pm on the same day.
c) In case application for regular bail is filed, the same shall be judiciously considered and decided by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction on the
same day.
sd
// True Copy // P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a serious dacoity case.
Whether the petitioner should surrender for interrogation before considering bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
LINTO KURIAN
STATE OF KERALA
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
