Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS, J
RAHIM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./8426/2015
Bail - Criminal Offence - IPC Sections 332, 225, 341, 353 - The court grants pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, highlighting the lawful duty of the complainant while considering the petitioners' lack of justification for their actions.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were accused in a police case for offenses related to obstructing a police officer in the discharge of duty while attempting to execute a warrant.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that while the petitioners' conduct was unjustifiable, it did not necessitate custodial interrogation, noting their attendance at a personal event and cooperation.
Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted pre-arrest bail despite accusations of using criminal force against a police officer during duty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for balancing the rights of the accused and the severity of the allegations, opting for bail under specified conditions.
Final Decision: Pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioners with conditions.
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.4906/2015 of Perumbavoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections
332,225,341 and 353 IPC .
2. The allegation of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, being a civil police officer, had attempted to execute a warrant issued against the accused in L.P.No.2/2013 of Sessions Court. In the course of discharge of that legal duty, the petitioners herein are stated to have interfered and forcefully got released the accused. He escaped from the spot. It is alleged that in the course of their action, they used criminal force also. On the basis of the complaint, crime was registered. Petitioners seek pre arrest bail.
3. Heard and examined the records.
4. Records indicate that the defacto complainant was in uniform.
The detailed narration of the defacto complaint also indicates that he was exercising his lawful duty and that the accused was sought to be arrested seems to have been conveyed. Though the conduct of the petitioners cannot be justified, it does not warrant a custodial interrogation of the petitioners. This is all the more so, since the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that both the petitioners are from Bangalore and had been at the spot to attend a marriage. This appears to be so, as evident from their address shown in the petition.
4. Having regard to the entire facts, I feel that pre arrest bail can be granted to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:
(i). The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail, on they executing bonds for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each.
ii). They shall appear before the Investigating officer on all Wednesdays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of execution of bonds as above.
(iii) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the witnesses.
Bail application is allowed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
