Sailesh Kumar v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MAY 2015/18TH VAISAKHA, 1937 Bail Appl.No. 1891 of 2015 ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 304/2015 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
------------------------- SAILESH KUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, HEERA ROYAL, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU (TRIPUNITHURA) RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, (CRIME 304/15), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.P ROY THOMAS THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ab
P.UBAID, J.
--------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of May, 2015 O R D E R The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.304/2015 of the Hill Palace Station registered under Sections 498(A) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.
This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused is now released, it will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation. 3.
On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary I find that investigation in the crime is practically over, and that the petitioner can be granted pre arrest bail. On a perusal of the case diary I find that the investigating officer has already questioned the material witnesses and has recovered the necessary materials. In the particular facts and circumstances, and in the nature of the
allegations, and also the nature of the materials required for prosecution, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. This is not a case where something will have to be collected for prosecution by way of custodial interrogation. I find that the police has gone a long way with investigation. I do not find the necessity of detention of the petitioner in custody for the purpose of investigation in the above circumstances. It will suffice that the petitioner is directed to report before the investigating officer periodically. However, some other conditions are also felt necessary. 4.
In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing bond with two solvent sureties for 25,000/- to the ₹ satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No.304/2015 of the Hill Palace Station. Bail is granted on condition that a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Tuesdays for a period of two months; and
b) The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab