Kerala High Court
Ajayan Vannarath vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 30 May, 2016
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 3906 of 2016 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 57/2016 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
......
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1:
-----------------------
AJAYAN VANNARATH,
S/O.LATE KANARAN, AGED 44 YEARS,
VANNARATH HOUSE, THOONERI AMSOM,
MUDAVANTHERI DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
--------------------------------
1.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NADAPURAM POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673001.
2.STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
P.UBAID, J.
============================
B.A.No.3906 of 2016
============================
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2016
ORDER
The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.57 of 2016 of the Nadapuram Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 308 and 436 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. He is the first accused.
2. The prosecution case is that at about 2.30 a.m. On 05.02.2016, the petitioner herein and his associates set fire to the motor cycle No.KL-18-H 2157, and the car No.KL-58-F-6009, belonging to the complainant, and in the said incident, the dwelling house of the complainant wherein he and others were sleeping also caught fire. It is alleged that, had the inmates not seen the fire, they and the whole building would have been burnt in the B.A.No.3906 of 2016 2 said incident. Thus the prosecution alleges the offence under Section 308 IPC besides Section 436 IPC. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the Case Diary, I find strong materials for a prosecution against the petitioner herein on the given set of allegations. He is specifically named in the complainant. His custodial interrogation is absolutely necessary for the collection of necessary materials for prosecution. When there are strong materials against him, and when his complicity is prima facie evident from the material so far collected, and when his interrogation is felt necessary absolutely, it is unsafe and improper to grant him pre arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
3. This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that, if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the proper and B.A.No.3906 of 2016 3 effective investigation.
4. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary and the police report, I find that investigation is at the preliminary stage, and that some more things remain to be done by the police as part of investigation. I find that this process will be obstructed if the petitioner is granted pre arrest bail. I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation in this case, and I find that the accused will obstruct the interrogation of the material witnesses, or he will influence or intimidate the witnesses if he is now granted pre arrest bail. However, if the petitioner so opts, he can surrender before the investigating officer or before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. After necessary interrogation, the question whether the accused can be granted regular bail, can well be considered by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. In the particular facts and circumstances of the case including the B.A.No.3906 of 2016 4 seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged, and also the stage of investigation, I find that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief of pre arrest bail can be granted.
In the result, this application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
Sd/-
rkj P.UBAID, JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE