The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam denied an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary and there was a risk of witness intimidation given the serious nature of the murder attempt allegations.
Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC dismissed; petitioners directed to surrender.
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
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/14TH BHADRA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 6119 of 2016 ()
CRIME NO.728/2015 OF SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
1. SAJEESH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.VASU, ARIYATHODIYIL HOUSE, PERUMUDIYUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. SHINJU T.,AGED 28, S/O.CHAMI, THOOTATHIL HOUSE, GREEN PARK, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.SREENIVASAN
SRI.K.A.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
P. UBAID, J
B.A.No.6119 of 2016
Dated this the 5th day of September, 2016
The petitioners herein seek pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.728/2015 of the Sreekrishnapuram Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 307, 497 and 120(b) read with 149 IPC.
2
B.A.Nos.6119 of 2016
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 is now released, they will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.
3
B.A.Nos.6119 of 2016
In the result, this application for pre-arrest bail is
dismissed.
Sd/P.UBAID, JUDGE
sd
// True Copy // P.A. to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution's contention regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation justifies the denial of pre-arrest bail.
Whether the potential to influence or intimidate witnesses warrants the rejection of the bail application.
Whether the gravity of the alleged offence and the preliminary stage of investigation preclude the grant of bail under Section 438 CrPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SAJEESH
SHINJU T.
STATE OF KERALA
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
