BY AD v. RENJITH B.MARAR
Case at a glance
- Bench
- C S DIAS
Outcome
Bail granted
In the result, the bail application is allowed by
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 294(b), 332, 341, 353, 427
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that pursuant to the order dated 23.04.2024, the petitioner surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 27.4.2024 and his interrogation has been completed. The petitioner’s further presence is not necessary. Hence, the interim order dated 23.04.2024 can be…
Judgment
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.3318 of 2024 -:2:- Dated this the 22nd day of May,2024
O R D E R The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Code’), for an order of pre-arrest bail.
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.375/2024 of the Kunnikkode Police Station, Kollam, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 332, 353 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
When the bail application came up for consideration on 23.4.2024, this Court passed an interim order, by directing the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from the date of order and subject himself to interrogation.
Heard; Sri. Renjith B. Marar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and B.A.No.3318 of 2024 -:3:- Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.
Operative part
The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that pursuant to the order dated 23.04.2024, the petitioner surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 27.4.2024 and his interrogation has been completed. The petitioner’s further presence is not necessary. Hence, the interim order dated 23.04.2024 can be made absolute, subject to additional conditions. The said submission is recorded. In the result, the bail application is allowed by making the interim order dated 23.04.2024 absolute, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and make himself available for interrogation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer;
(ii)The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so B.A.No.3318 of 2024 -:4:- as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;
(iii)The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;
(v) The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional Court;
(vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions above, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.
(vii)Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below.
(viii)Needless to mention, it would be well within B.A.No.3318 of 2024 -:5:- the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]. SD/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE rmm/22.5.2024
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the bail application is allowed by
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 294(b), 332, 341, 353, 427.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.