Disposed

C.John v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Feb 2019Bail Appl./46/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application under Section 395 IPC, the Court held that a subsequent application on the same facts is not legally sustainable. However, it remitted the matter to the court below to consider specific grounds raised regarding investigation completion and the main accused's bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application disposed of; direction issued to the court below to consider bail based on specific grounds, noting investigation is nearly complete.

C.John Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 24TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 46 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 162/CR/OCW1/TVPM/17 OF CBCID (EOW), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING FROM CRIME NO. 723/2015 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATIN.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6:

¶8

C.JOHN

¶9

AGED 47 YEARS

¶10

S/O.C.CHELLAPPAN, KOORENPARA VEEDU, PANNIMALA, KOOTHALI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE 7 COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH CID (EOW), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

PP S SAJJU

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 6.02.2019, THE COURT ON 13/2/2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA NO. 46/2019

O R D E R

This is the second bail application filed by accused No.6 in Crime No.162/CR/OCW1/TVPM/17 for offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

According to the prosecution, on 09.03.2015, a lorry load of poultry proceeding to Kerala reached Amaravila at 2.15 a.m. It was waylaid by about 10 persons. They took away the lorry and poultry and Rs.20,000/- kept in it. Complaint was laid and crime was registered. It was revealed that the first accused had certain financial dealings with the owner of the poultry and hence he had arranged for the above crime. In the course of investigation, the owner of poultry complained that the initial investigation was not proper and that, certain police officers interfered in the investigation. Hence, investigation was taken over by the CBCID. They arrayed the petitioner herein who was the CI of Neyyattinkara during the relevant time, in the crime alleging that, incident happened with his connivance and that, thereafter he favoured first accused to settle the dispute.

¶23

The earlier bail application filed as B.A.No.7891 of 2018 was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21.12.2018 with a direction to the petitioner herein to surrender before the investigating officer and that, after interrogation, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court. Jurisdictional court was directed to consider the bail application on the same day.

¶24

¶25

BA NO. 46/2019

¶26

The present bail application is filed on a premise that, this Court while disposing of the bail application has not taken into consideration the crucial fact that the first accused who is alleged to be the main culprit was granted bail by this Court by Annexure-F order. It was further contended that, pending the proceedings, DIG (Crimes) CBCID had enquired into the matter and submitted a report to the IG of Police stating that the petitioner has absolutely no complicity in the matter and he has been unnecessarily made an accused. The above report is produced as Annexure-E. It was further contended that the petitioner has an unblemished record of service and directing the petitioner to surrender and leaving further directions for consideration of bail application to the trial court may work out injustice to him. It was contended that, investigation has reached the final stage. All the materials have been gathered and the statement of crucial witness was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. It was further contended that, petitioner is entitled for bail and that, no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody except to satisfy the interest of his enemies who are bent upon ensuring that he was remanded. It was further contended that, in the case of remand, petitioner will loose his job.

¶27

I have considered the entire contentions in its right perspective. It seems that the materials now relied on by the petitioner were available at the time of disposing of the earlier bail application though not dealt with in detail in the earlier order. It was pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, even though by Annexure-E order, DIG

¶28

BA NO. 46/2019

¶29

¶30

Crimes have submitted a report, another enquiry was conducted by an IPS Officer under the directions of Honourable Lok Ayuktha and that report was not favourable to the petitioner.

¶31

It is true that the investigation has reached almost the final stage. The presence of the petitioner is essentially required for completing the investigation in the present crime. It is also true that the main accused was granted pre-arrest bail way back on 22.01.2016, on the basis of the available materials. The investigation has not chosen to request to recall it. The investigation has also reached the final stage. However, this being a second bail application on the same set of facts, the second bail application is legally not sustainable. Hence, I am inclined to dispose of the present bail application with a direction that, court below while considering the bail application referred to in the operative portion of B.A.No.7891 of 2018 shall consider the specific grounds raised by petitioner in para 4 of this order and that investigation has almost been completed and the first accused was granted bail by this Court in 2016.

¶32

Bail application is disposed of with the above observations.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

sbna

C.John v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.John v. the 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

Nahas, Vs State of Kerala

Vyshnav.v.R Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs the Excise Circle Inspector

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala