Kerala High Court
C. John vs The State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2018
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 7891 of 2018
CRIME NO. 162/2017 OF CBCID (EOW), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6:
C. JOHN
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.C.CHELLAPPAN,
KOORENPARA VEEDU,
PANNIMALA,
KOOTHALI P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN 682 031.
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CRIME BRANCH CID (EOW),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP S SAJJU
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.12.2018, THE
COURT ON 21.12.2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.7891/18
2
ORDER
Petitioner who is arrayed as the 6 th accused in Crime No.162 of 2017 of CBCID (EOW), Thiruvananthapuram for offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code apprehending arrest seeks bail.
2. 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 in the crime alleging that, incident happened with his connivance and that, thereafter he favoured first accused to settle the dispute.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that he had a meritorious and unblemished service. It was contended that, on 04.03.2015, he had received a complaint from the first accused stating that, owner of poultry owed him substantial amount. Receipt of complaint was entered in the B.A.7891/18 3 petition register evidenced by Annexure-A. Since it was a complaint of civil nature, it was closed evidenced by Annexure-B. On 09.03.2015, he received an information about the present incident. He directed the vehicle and poultry to be removed to police station. Since parties agreed to settle the dispute, owner was directed to take the vehicle and poultry was removed to a nearby farm. It was contended that, those facts were entered in the General Diary evidenced by Annexure-C.
4. On the other hand, prosecution allegation is that Annexure-A complaint was a prelude to the incident that occurred on 09.03.2015. It was alleged that, first accused and the petitioner herein were close friends. After the incident, the first accused had called the petitioner herein. Though the incident happened on 09.03.2015, crime was registered only on 18.05.2015. In the meanwhile, petitioner allegedly directed parties to settle, though clear ingredients of crime were made out. Materials to indicate that the petitioner had interfered in the investigation and refused to register crime and had given instruction to police not to interfere being a civil dispute are unearthed. The poultry was released to the first accused under instruction of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the owner of the poultry had complained to various authorities, including Lok Ayukta.
5. It seems that, investigating agency has collected several materials to support their case. Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of some witnesses have also been recorded. Definitely, the accused has also set B.A.7891/18 4 up a defence. However, the interrogation of the accused may be required. Hence, I am inclined to direct the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer within 10 working days from today. After interrogation, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the same day itself, which shall consider his bail application on the same day, having regard to the facts mentioned above.
Bail application is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE Sbna/