Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID WEDNESDAY, THE11H DAY OF JUNE201421ST JYAISHTA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 4114 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 739/2014 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.1: -------------------------------- BINU S, AGED37YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN, MUDAPALLIL, KAITHANORT KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.RASHEED THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1106-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Bail Appl..No. 4114 of 2014 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY PERTAINING TO THE APPLICANT ISSUED FROM THE MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL DATED202.2014 /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~ B.A No.4114 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 11th June, 2014 ORDER
The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in Crime No.739 of 2014 of Mavelikara Police Station, registered under Sections 3 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012. On the basis of reliable and secret information, the Sub Inspector of Police, Mavelikara conducted a search in the house of the 2nd accused on 31.5.2014. On search, so many materials were seen unauthorisedly kept by him in the house, like blank cheque leaves more than ten in number, signed blank papers more than ten in number, so many sale deeds, so many Promisory Notes and so many registration certificates of vehicles. These materials were seized by the Sub Inspector as per search list and the 2nd accused was arrested on the spot on the belief that those materials were possessed by him as part of some unauthorised money lending business. When interrogated in custody, the 2nd B.A No.4114 of 2014 2 accused gave reliable information regarding the involvement of the petitioner herein in the large scale money lending business, and he stated before the Police that such materials were in fact handed over to him by the petitioner herein as the person having effective charge and control over the said business. In such a situation, the petitioner herein was also arraigned as accused in the crime. The 2nd accused was later produced in Court, and later he was released on bail. Now the 1st accused seeks pre-arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest as part of investigation.
2. As required by the Court, the learned Public Prosecutor produced the case diary along with report of the Investigating Officer. This application for bail was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case diary including the report of the Investigating Officer, I find the absolute necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner as part of investigation to detect and find out the real involvement of the petitioner in the alleged large scale money lending business. Of course, it is true that search B.A No.4114 of 2014 3 was conducted in the house of the 2nd accused and the materials were also seized from his possession. But this petitioner was arraigned as accused on the basis of reliable materials indicating his involvement in the alleged business. Only on thorough interrogation as part of investigation, the exact role or involvement of the petitioner herein could be found out by the Police. If he is released on bail without and before being interrogated in custody, it will definitely affect the proper and effective investigation of the crime. If he is really the person having effective control over the alleged business, he cannot be casually or lightly released. After necessary interrogation, the question of bail can be considered by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. In the result, this bail application is closed with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation within five days from this date. After necessary interrogation as part of investigation, the petitioner shall be produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, by the Investigating Officer on the same day. If application is filed for regular B.A No.4114 of 2014 4 bail under Section 437 of Cr.P.C., the same shall be judiciously considered and decided by the learned Magistrate. If detention of the petitioner in custody is not necessary, the question of releasing the petitioner on bail on appropriate conditions can be thought of or else appropriate orders can be passed by the learned Magistrate. Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge