Disposed

Shamla Beevi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jul 2016Bail Appl./5272/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of an application for pre-arrest bail by directing the petitioner to surrender for interrogation, reserving the decision on bail for the Magistrate after the investigation team considers the materials gathered during the interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation; bail decision deferred to Magistrate after interrogation.

Shamla Beevi Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2016/7TH SRAVANA, 1938 Bail Appl..No. 5272 of 2016 () -------------------------------

¶5

CRIME NO. 775/2016 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶6

PETITIONER(S)ACCUSED NO.2:

¶7

SHAMLA BEEVI AGED 34 YEARS, W/O SULAIMAN KUNJU, PANDARATHODE, VELLAMUNNADI P.O., NELLAND VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 607.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.B.RAJESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: --------------------

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 607.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REMA R.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P.UBAID, J.

¶16

- - - - B.A.No. 5272 of 2016

¶17

- - - - Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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. 775 of 2016 of the Venjaramoodu Police Station, registered under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner herein is the second accused in the above crime.

¶20

The present crime is concerning pledge of

¶21

spurious gold in the Indian Overseas Bank's Venjaramoodu Branch. The first accused is the gold appraiser attached to the Bank. The prosecution case is that with the help of the petitioner and the others, the first accused pledged spurious gold in the Bank in different accounts for huge amount, and thus cheated the Bank in breach of the trust reposed on him by the Bank as its appraiser.

¶22

B.A.No. 5272 of 2016

¶23

-2-

¶24

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

¶25

In the nature of the allegations, I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation. Her interrogation for the collection of some materials concerning her role in the alleged transaction, the way in which she helped the others including the appraiser, whether she had availed any amount of loan, whether she has any connection with the spurious gold pledged in the Bank, the extent of her complicity in the crime, etc. is felt absolutely necessary. After such interrogation, the request for bail can be considered by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. I do not think that the learned Magistrate will mechanically

¶26

B.A.No. 5272 of 2016

¶27

-3-

¶28

remand the petitioner to judicial custody without examining the case records. If her detention in custody is felt not necessary, after interrogation, the learned Magistrate can even grant bail to the petitioner.

¶29

In the result, this application for bail is disposed of as follows:

¶30

a) The petitioner will surrender before the Investigating Officer between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. on any day within ten days from this date for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation.

¶31

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.

¶32

c) In case application for regular

¶33

bail is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be

¶34

B.A.No. 5272 of 2016

¶35

-4-

¶36

judiciously considered and decided by the learned Magistrate on the same day on merits.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Shamla Beevi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamla Beevi 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

Murali Menon Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Ranajith Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan Chalakad Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh Vs State of Kerala

M.C. Aboobaker Vs State of Kerala

C R Venugopalan Vs State of Kerala