Allowed

Muhammed P.V v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2018Bail Appl./5005/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by an accused accused of examination malpractice via WhatsApp, concluding that custodial interrogation was not required for effective investigation at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted; applicants to appear before Investigating Officer within ten days, undergo interrogation, and execute bond for Rs.50,000 each with two solvable sureties.

Muhammed P.V Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 13TH ASWINA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 5005 of 2018

¶5

CRIME NO. 81/2018 OF MANKADA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

MUHAMMED P.V., S/O.MUTHUKOYA, AGED 20 YEARS, PUTHIYAVEEDU HOUSE, NEAR JUMA-MASJID, KAVARATHY, LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682 555.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM SRI.R.ABDUL AHAD

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SHO, MANKADA POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶11

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2018, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5011/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

B.As.5011 & 5005 of 2018

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This application is filed under §438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶17

The applicant in B.A.No. 5011/18 is the 10^th accused

¶18

and the applicant in B.A.No. 5005/2018 is the 8^th accused in Crime No. 81/2018 registered at the Mankada Police Station. In the aforesaid crime, they are being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under §§406 and 120(b) of IPC. Both these applications are considered and disposed of together.

¶19

On 12.02.2018, written examination of the All India Trade Test for the II Semester students was held at Hamad ITC, Tiroorkkad. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were appearing for the exams on that day. They entered the examination hall with mobile phones and took photos of certain questions and forwarded those photographs to a WhatsApp group by name 'Coming Soon ES4' in which they were also members. The other students saw the questions and the same was forwarded to the 10^th accused, who is an instructor. She answered the questions and sent it back to the person, who had forwarded it. He, in turn, posted the answer in the WhatsApp group. The students

¶20

B.As.5011 & 5005 of 2018

¶21

¶22

who were writing the exams, copied the answer. It appears that

¶23

the 1^st accused was caught with the mobile phone by the Invigilator concerned. He, in turn, alerted the Examination Superintendent. On a perusal of the mobile phones, the malpractice committed by the accused came to light. The accused Nos.1 and 2, the other group members and the instructor were roped in as the accused.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the 8^th accused submitted that he was not appearing for the exams held on that day and he was not even in the college when the message was forwarded. It is submitted that he was arrayed as an accused as he was member of the WhatsApp group.

¶25

The 10^th accused is a lady and an instructor of the ITI. The learned counsel appearing for the 10^th accused contended that on 12.2.2018, while she was in the staff room, a message was received from one Muhammed, who is a III Semester student. He wanted the answer to a question which related to the II Semester. As he was not appearing for the exam held on that day, the instructor provided him with the answer. According

¶26

B.As.5011 & 5005 of 2018

¶27

¶28

to the learned counsel, she was unaware that the students were upto malpractices.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the 8^th accused was a member of the group.. Insofar as the 10^th accused is concerned, it is contended that being the instructor, she should have been more cautious while providing with the answers especially while examinations were going on.

¶30

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. It is evident that the malpractice was carried out by accused Nos.1 and 2. The prosecution has no case that the 8^th accused had responded to the messages. Except for being a member of the class group, he has no other role. Insofar as the 10^th accused is concerned, the query was posed by one Muhammed, who is a III Semester student. It does not appear that she was aware that it was meant for accused Nos.1 and 2. Furthermore, on the same day itself, the 10^th accused had informed the academic Dean as well as the Principal with regard to the suspicious activities. This fact is

¶31

B.As.5011 & 5005 of 2018

¶32

¶33

evident from Annexures-A1 and A2. Having considered the entire aspects, the custodial interrogation of the applicants does not appear to be required for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶34

In the result, these applications will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶35

i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶36

ii) They 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.

¶37

iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶38

B.As.5011 & 5005 of 2018

¶39

¶40

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶43

Dxy

Muhammed P.V v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed P.V 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

Kuzhinjalil Jose Vs State of Kerala

Ashif a Vs State of Kerala

Syamraj K. Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Keezhvaipur Police Station

Ashifa.C Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith @ Karumady Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh @ Kuttan Vs State of Kerala