Kerala High Court
Tijo Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 26TH MAGHA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 669 of 2018
CRIME NO.194/2017 OF VAZHIKADAVU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
TIJO JOSEPH,
S/O JOSEPH, KAITHOLIL HOUSE,
DARKAS P.O., PARAPPA,
KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN-685602.
BY ADVS.SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
(ON BEHALF OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN
CRIME NO.194/2017 OF VAZHIKADAVU POLICE STATION).
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J
--------------------------------------------
B.A No. 669 of 2018
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2018
ORDER
1.This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.The petitioner herein is arrayed as the 2 nd accused in Crime No.194 of 2017 of Vazhikadavu Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 3 and 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act,1959.
3.The sequence of events which led to the registration of crime is as follows:
The 1st accused in the subject crime, Sri Shajahan, was arrested on 17.12.2017 in Crime No.82/2017 registered under Section 379 of the IPC. While he was questioned, he disclosed that about 3 years prior to the date of his arrest, he had got acquainted with the person by name Velayudhan from whom he had purchased a gun for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. The gun was purchased, according to him, for being handed over to his friend Srinivas, who is a poacher. He then concealed the gun in the forest so that it could be retrieved later. According to him, in the year 2015, while the B.A No. 669 of 2018 2 forest officers, which include the petitioner herein, were engaged in removing weeds from the thickets, they chanced across the concealed gun. Later, he received information that the concealed gun was taken away by the petitioner herein and the factum of its seizure was not reported. On the strength of the said disclosure, the instant crime was registered. Shajahan was arrayed as the first accused and the petitioner found himself arrayed as the 2nd accused.
4.After registration of the crime, the investigation revealed that the disclosure made by the 1st accused was genuine and the gun which was allegedly seized by the Forest officers was discreetly taken away by the petitioner without reporting the seizure to his superiors.
5.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is now working as a Beat Forest officer, is totally innocent and he has been roped in on false accusations. The disclosure allegedly made by the 1st accused after about 3 years of the incident has been made the subject matter of registration of the instant crime. It is urged by the learned Senior Counsel the officers who had accompanied the petitioner in January 2015 had taken B.A No. 669 of 2018 3 possession of the gun and had taken it to the forest outpost to be handed over to the Forester. He was given the impression that the same was handed over. The learned Senior counsel would submit that the gun which is the subject matter of the crime was recovered by the police on 21.12.2017. He relied on Annexure-2 and 3 affidavits filed before this Court by one Manoj and Prakash to support his contentions. The learned Senior Counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the General Diary of the Nedumkayam Police Station to contend that the petitioner herein was summoned by the Circle Inspector of Police, Edakkara Police Station, in connection with the aforesaid crime and that he had made a true and complete disclosure of what had transpired. If on the basis of such false allegations, that too, raised after several years, the petitioner is arrested and detained, he would be subjected to ignominy and disgrace and it also would result in him losing his job is the submission.
6.The learned Public Prosecutor has very zealously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the investigation conducted till date points to the involvement of the petitioner. His B.A No. 669 of 2018 4 assertion of innocence cannot be accepted at this juncture according to the learned public prosecutor. It is further submitted that no reliance could be placed on Annexure-2 and 3 at this stage.
7.I have considered the submissions and have gone through the case diary. The petitioner is a Beat forest officer and the crime was registered pursuant to the disclosure made by the 1st accused who was nabbed by the police for being involved in a crime involving the offence of theft. Prima facie, there appears to be materials in the case diary which throws some doubt on the veracity of the disclosure made by the 1 st accused. The investigation is still in the early stages and I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation is not necessitous for an fair and effective investigation. Conditions can be imposed to see that the petitioner joins the investigation and the same is proceeded with in a meticulous manner.
8.In the result , this petition will stand allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions .
i). The petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be B.A No. 669 of 2018 5 released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.
ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between
9 a.m. and 1 p.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
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.
iv)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
v) The petitioner shall not leave the Country without the permission of the court having jurisdiction.
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.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE AD