Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
SUGATHAN.R. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./4627/2017
Bail - Pre-Arrest Bail Application - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 438 - The court allowed the pre-arrest bail application under Section 438, noting the vague allegations against the petitioner and emphasizing the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation based on the nature of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused in a case involving the illegal possession of wild animal meat. Allegations against him were vague, claiming he only requested the principal accused to share the meat but was not directly involved in the act of possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that custodial interrogation was not warranted due to the vague nature of the allegations and the lack of direct involvement of the petitioner in the crime. Sufficient safeguards were deemed adequate to protect the prosecution's interests.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted pre-arrest bail considering the nature of allegations and the absence of concrete evidence against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases where allegations are vague and there is little likelihood of conviction, pre-arrest bail may be granted, particularly if the accused's role does not warrant custodial interrogation.
Final Decision: The pre-arrest bail application was allowed with specific conditions.
ORDER
1.This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
2.The petitioner has been arrayed as the 4th accused in O.R. No.5 of
2016 of the Pathanapuram Forest Range Office, Kollam.
3.It appears that on 13.7.2016 information was received by the Forest Officials that the meat of a wild animal was secreted in the house of the 1st accused. Search was conducted and it is alleged that about 2 Kgs of meat of a wild animal was seized. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he had requested the 1st accused to give a portion of the meat to the 2nd accused . It was the 3rd accused who went in his bike and handed over a portion of the meat to the 2nd accused .
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
BA 4627/2017 2
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a person who is residing near to the reserve forest and that he has been falsely implicated. The learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer.
6.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. Only vague allegations are levelled against the petitioner. He had no role in the acts committed by the principal accused. The prosecution has also no case that he had shared the meat of the wild animal.
7.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the allegations raised and also the role played by the petitioner herein, it does not appear to me that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted on the facts of the case. Sufficient safeguards can be imposed to serve the interest of the prosecution.
8.In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the forest officer concerned Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for BA 4627/2017 3 a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Officer concerned on all Saturdays between 9 AM and 10 AM, for 1 month or till final report is filed, which ever is earlier.
(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
(v) If he surrenders before the Magistrate, this order shall not be applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.
(vi) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the concerned court on being noticed of that fact will be empowered to cancel the bail.
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
