Allowed

R.Lalu v. State, Station House Officer

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016Bail Appl./6180/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application. The Court held that custodial interrogation is not required and directed the petitioner’s release on bail with sureties and specific conditions regarding reporting and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner released on bond of Rupees one lakh with two sureties, subject to conditions to report on Saturdays and cooperate with investigation.

R.Lalu Vs State, Station House Officer — Corruption | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6180 of 2016 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO.VC. 15/2016 OF VACB SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED.:

¶8

R.LALU, AGED 52 YEARS, REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, CALICUT, NOW RESIDING AT NANDANAM, PUTHENKULAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.:

¶11

STATE, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VACB SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECURTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

BY SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶16

................................................................ B.A. No. 6180 of 2016

¶17

............................................................... Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner has come up before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.V.C-15/2016 of VACB Special Cell, Ernakulam which has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶20

The petitioner is presently working as Secretary

¶21

of the Thrissur Municipal Corporation. Earlier, the petitioner was working as the Secretary of the Greater Cochin Development Authority(GCDA) on deputation for the period from 16.03.2013 to 10.08.2016. According to the petitioner, he had implemented the decision taken by the GCDA on 11.11.2005 and that he has been found fault with in the

¶22

B.A. No. 6180 of 2016

¶23

-: 2 :-

¶24

implementation of that decision.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶26

the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶27

On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the continued investigation of this case. All the details can be taken from the records. When the matters are born out from records, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. At the same time, the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶28

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to

¶29

B.A. No. 6180 of 2016

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

the following terms and conditions:-

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. on all Saturdays for a period of three months.

¶33

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

¶34

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶35

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.

¶36

It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.

¶37

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶38

ul/-

¶39

// true copy //

¶40

P.S. to Judge.

R.Lalu v. State, Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Lalu v. State, Station House Officer

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

K.Vijayan Vs Raju S. and Another

Gopalan Nair Vs State of Kerala

N.Shanker Reddy IPS Vs the Chief Secretary

Reji John Vs Geetha John

Punneri Kunkan Vs State of Kerala

Divakaran Vs State of Kerala