Allowed

Prof Capt. v.C.James v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jan 2018Bail Appl./132/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed pre-arrest bail to the petitioner accused in a shooting championship manipulation case. The court noted disputes between association factions, found custodial interrogation unwarranted initially, but imposed strict conditions for interrogation and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Order of pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions: appearance for interrogation within ten days, execution of bond for Rs.40,000 with two sureties, cooperation with investigation, and no induceme

Prof Capt. v.C.James Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 25TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 132 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN OF KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

PROF CAPT. V.C. JAMES, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O CHACKO THOMAS, VALIYAKUNNEL HOUSE, AVOLI PO, ANIKKAD, MOOVATUPUZHA-686670.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH

¶10

SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM) SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS SMT.P.V.DENCY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S.I OF POLICE, KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN)

¶13

*ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED

¶14

2. DAVID JOHN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.P.D. JOHNSON, PUDUKKADAN HOUSE, CHEROOR ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 020.

¶15

ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.01.2018 IN CRL.M.A.474/2018.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU. S ADDL.R2 BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN

¶17

SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.K.S.SMITHA SMT.T.T.SHANIBA SRI.M.V.VIPINDAS SMT.JINU ANTONY

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

mbr/

¶20

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶21

B.A.No.132 of 2018

¶22

Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2018

¶23

ORDER

¶24

1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

2.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.10 of 2018 of the Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

¶26

3.According to the prosecution, the petitioner herein while

¶27

serving as the Range Officer in the 25 metre Pistol shooting event of the State Shooting Championship manipulated the target card with a view to award points to certain ineligible shooters and thereby committed the offence.

¶28

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations are without any basis. The rules are framed in such a manner that any such malpractice cannot happen. According to the learned counsel, the scoring is done

¶29

B.A.No.132 of 2018 2

¶30

manually and the shots are all marked by a sketch pen. The scoring officer announces the result of the shots tentatively and the same is recorded by the Shooters, Coaches and Managers. The target sheets are later recounted by a team of persons in the Scoring Room, which procedure would also eliminate any sort of malpractice. It is urged that the petitioner is working as a Professor at Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha and he is the holder of D Judges Certificate in International Shooting. According to the learned counsel, the belated complaint was filed to ensure that the nomination submitted by the petitioner to the National Rifle Association is rejected.

¶31

5.The de facto complainant had entered appearance through counsel. He had filed a detailed counter affidavit as well. It is submitted that the petitioner herein had awarded ineligible scores for shooters. It is submitted that when the Police was reluctant to register an FIR due to the influence of the petitioner, he had to approach this Court and secure orders.

¶32

6.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through the case diary as well.

¶33

7.It appears that there are disputes between two factions of

¶34

B.A.No.132 of 2018 3

¶35

the State Level Rifle Association. Allegation is that the petitioner had manipulated the target card. After considering the submissions advanced, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that his custodial interrogation in a case of this nature is quite unwarranted. I am inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶36

8.In the result, this petition is allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions.

¶37

i).The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶38

ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶39

iii)The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶40

iv)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶41

B.A.No.132 of 2018 4

¶42

v) If he surrenders before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶43

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶44

jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶47

IAP

¶48

//True Copy\

¶49

P.A to Judge

Prof Capt. v.C.James v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof Capt. v.C.James 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

Muhammed Kunhi Vs State of Kerala

Akash Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

Anuraj Manoharan Vs State of Kerala

Athul @ Monkuttan Vs State of Kerala

Suriyan Vs State of Kerala