IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4608 OF 2024 CRIME NO.544/2024 OF ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN CRMC NO.1527 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

UMESH K.G AGED 40 YEARS S/O GOPI, ITHUPARAMBU HOUSE, MANNANCHERRY P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688532 BY ADVS. C.S.MANU DILU JOSEPH C.A.ANUPAMAN T.B.SIVAPRASAD C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR MANJU E.R.

ANANDHU SATHEESH ALINT JOSEPH PAUL JOSE DAINY DAVIS RESPONDENT/COMPLAINAT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT:

SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

12.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2024

O R D E R

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.544/2024 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station, Ernakulam, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on

12.05.2024, at around 19.30 hours, the accused, who is working as a police constable attached to the Ernakulam North Police Station, with an intention to commit theft of the car belonging to the defacto complainant, while the defacto complainant’s friend and his family were travelling in the car, the accused intercepted the car and took the vehicle to the police station. On reaching the police station, the accused compelled the defacto complainant to clear his liabilities with M/s Manappuram Finance, Kannur, from whom the defacto complainant had availed a car loan. The accused assaulted the defacto complainant with a bamboo stick and caused injury to him. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.C.S. Manu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. There is no incriminating material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offences. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that there are incriminating materials to establish that the petitioner committed the above offences. He also stated that while the petitioner was discharging his official duties, he, without any knowledge or permission of the Station House Officer, in his individual capacity, seized the vehicle on behalf of the finance company and then, caused hurt to the defacto complainant. The petitioner has misused his public office. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary, and the recovery is to be effected. If the petitioner is granted an order of ore-arrest bail, he would certainly torpedo the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

7. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be seen that the petitioner, a police constable, acting as an agent of the finance company, intercepted the defacto complainant’s vehicle, took it to the police station, and compelled the defacto complainant to clear his liabilities with the finance company. It is also alleged that the petitioner hurt the defacto complainant. The materials reveal that the petitioner has acted on his volition, without the knowledge or permission of the Station House Officer.

8. The petitioner had moved to the Court of Session, Ernakulam, by filing Crl.M.C. No.1527/2024. By Annexure A3 order, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner’s custodial interro