Disposed

Biju N.G v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2016Bail Appl./5113/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding a fatal traffic accident where the accused was the bus driver, the High Court of Kerala directed the petitioner to surrender for interrogation instead of granting pre-arrest bail, reserving the decision on regular bail for the Magistrate post-interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation; pre-arrest bail not granted; regular bail to be considered by Magistrate after interrogation.

Biju N.G Vs State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/12TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5113 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.2780/2016 OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

BIJU N.G, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, NIKARTHIL HOUSE, EZHUMAM THURUTH, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -686 613.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (MANNAR) SRI.A.KRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA.T.Y

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

P.UBAID, J.

¶16

- - - - B.A.No. 5113 of 2016

¶17

- - - - Dated this the 03^rd day of August, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner herein seeks pre-arrest bail under

¶20

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the

¶21

apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No. 2780 of 2016 of the Thiruvananthapuram Police Station, registered under Sections 279 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 134(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above crime.

¶22

A traffic accident involving a KSRTC bus and an autorikshaw, wherein two persons died, is the subject matter of this crime. The petitioner herein was the driver of the said KSRTC bus.

¶23

This application for pre-arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused is

¶24

B.A.No. 5113 of 2016

¶25

-2-

¶26

now released, he will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶27

The prosecution records reveal that the alleged incident was a head on collision of the KSRTC bus and the autorikshaw. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the alleged incident is only an instance of traffic accident that may attract only Section 304A of IPC, and the prosecution records do not reveal any element or ingredient of the offence under Section 304 of IPC. In the nature of the allegations, I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation. His interrogation for the collection of some materials concerning the exact way in which the alleged incident happened, the place where it happened on the public road, the circumstance in which the petitioner's bus happened to come to the wrong side, the way in which the autorikshaw was driven by the driver, etc., is felt necessary. After necessary interrogation, the request for regular bail

¶28

B.A.No. 5113 of 2016

¶29

-3-

¶30

can be considered by the learned Magistrate. The whole prosecution records will have to be perused by the learned Magistrate to see whether this is in fact a case under the second part of Section 304 of IPC, or only a case of rash and negligent driving causing death, attracting only Section 304A IPC. For a prosecution under Section 304 of IPC in the matter of a traffic accident, there must be materials to show that the alleged vehicle was driven in extreme rashness and negligence by the driver with the full knowledge of the inevitable consequence that such an act will definitely cause an accident resulting in the death of passengers or pedestrians. Let those aspects be gone into by the learned Magistrate when application for regular bail comes. When his interrogation for the collection of materials discussed above is necessary, I am not inclined to make a probe into those factual aspects as regards Sections 304 and 304A of IPC. Let it be gone into by the learned Magistrate at the right stage.

¶31

B.A.No. 5113 of 2016

¶32

-4-

¶33

In the result, this application for bail is disposed of

¶34

as follows:

¶35

a) The petitioner will surrender before

¶36

the Investigating Officer between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. on any day within seven days from this date for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation.

¶37

b) After necessary interrogation, the investigating officer will produce the petitioner before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction by 4 pm. on the date of arrest itself.

¶38

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

¶39

the same day on merits, having in mind, the observations made above.

Sd/-

P.UBAID

JUDGE

Biju N.G v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju N.G 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

Mahesh Vs State of Kerala

M.C. Aboobaker Vs State of Kerala

C R Venugopalan Vs State of Kerala

Nafeel Vs the State of Kerala

Asfana T.A. Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Chandran Nair @ Chandu Vs State of Kerala