Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28426
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAMEER S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./1706/2021
Anticipatory bail can be granted when evidence is insufficient to warrant custodial interrogation, balancing rights against investigation needs.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure - Cr.P.C Section 438; IPC Sections 447, 506(i), 436; PDPP Act Section 3(e) - The court granted anticipatory bail to applicants, emphasizing lack of solid evidence linking them to the crime, while imposing stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were accused of trespassing and arson, causing damage to property and intimidation of the complainant. They claimed innocence, alleging the charges stemmed from political rivalry and lack of evidence against them.
Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in the absence of concrete evidence linking the applicants to the alleged crime and considering their political affiliations.
Ratio Decidendi: Without sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, the necessity for custodial interrogation diminishes, warranting the provision of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The application for anticipatory bail is allowed with strict conditions.
ORDER
Dated this the 26th day of February 2021 This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.
2. The applicants are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.2213/2020 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 447 , 506(i), 436 of the IPC and Section 3(e) of the PDPP Act .
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
17.12.2020 at about 1.45 a.m, the applicants allegedly trespassed into the compound of the de facto complainant's house, intimidated the de facto complainant and thereafter with the knowledge that their activity would cause damage to the dwelling house, they set ablaze an ambulance vehicle parked in front of the house of the de facto complainant, destroying it completely and as a result of the blaze certain household articles were also damaged. A portion of the window of the house also got damaged. The de facto complainant thus sustained a total loss of Rs.7 lakhs. It is also stated that the electricity wire which was connecting the house to the main electric supply wire was also damaged because of the act of the applicants and being a public property, they committed an offence punishable under Section 3(e) of the PDPP Act .
4. The applicants state that the allegations are not true and even going by the FI Statement, it is only an assumption that certain members of the Congress party may have committed the offence. Because the de facto complainant allegedly belongs to PDP and they have certain rivalry between them. After the local body elections, there was also a procession carried out in the front of the house of the de facto complainant and that is the reason for the assumption that the applicants who are also members of the Congress party that they had done the alleged act of arson and destruction of property. The applicants state that they are innocent and only on surmises they have been impleaded as accused.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the first and second applicants have criminal antecedents. The first applicant is involved in a crime for offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC , while the second applicant is implicated in a crime for an offence under the Sand Act. Hence, the application is vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. After having heard the submissions on both sides, I find that there is no material collected by the prosecution to indicate that the applicants were the perpetrators of the crime. Assumption given in the statement of the de facto complainant that it may be Congress workers who have done the alleged act. The applicants admittedly belong to the Congress and they have allegedly conducted a procession also on the previous night and therefore they have put things together to include that it is the applicant who had done it. But without any concrete piece of evidence, it cannot be concluded that the applicants are the perpetrators of the crime. The prosecution still has more time to complete the investigation and I am sure that they would make an earnest attempt to find the perpetrators of the crime. The custodial interrogation of the applicants therefore not necessary. But at the same time, they have to co- operate with the investigation and therefore they are directed to be released on bail on stringent conditions.
8. In the result the application is allowed and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of their arrest, after interrogation and recovery if any, they shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions;
1. They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months or till fili
