AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.
The applicants are the accused Nos.12 and 13 in Crime No.638/2020 of Mannuthy Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 344, 324, 294(b), 506(ii), 364A, 365, 395 read with 149 of the IPC.
The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 kidnapped the son and husband of the defacto complainant for ransom from Mannuthy with the help of one Shihabudheen and they were detained in the house of the applicants at Valluvambram, Malappuram District.
I have heard Sri. Anand Kalyanakrishnan, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and if they are released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.
The law regarding the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power u/s 438 of Cr.P.C could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicants is very serious in nature and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on their part. The accused No.12 is the father and the accused No.13 is the uncle of the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5. The applicants were not initially arrayed as accused. However, during investigation it was found that after abduction, the son and the husband of the defacto complainant were taken to the house of the applicants at Valluvambram in Malappuram District and detained there. The investigating agency has collected sufficient materials to prove that they were kept and detained there. When the case came up for hearing on the last posting date, I directed the applicants to appear before the investigating officer and the investigating officer was given opportunity to interrogate them. I specifically observed that the applicants should cooperate with the investigation. After interrogation, a report has been filed before me today. In the report it is stated that the applicants did not cooperate with the interrogation. They totally denied the prosecution case that the husband and son of the defacto complainant were kept and detained in their house. It goes against the material collected during investigation.
In these circumstances, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants are necessary. The bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.