AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.10 of 2018 of the Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad registered alleging offence punishable
under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner herein while serving as the Range Officer in the 25 metre Pistol shooting event of the State Shooting
Championship manipulated the target card with a view to award points to certain ineligible shooters and thereby committed the offence.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations are without any basis. The rules are framed in such a manner that
any such malpractice cannot happen. According to the learned counsel, the scoring is done manually and the shots are all marked by a sketch pen.
The scoring officer announces the result of the shots tentatively and the same is recorded by the Shooters, Coaches and Managers. The target
sheets are later recounted by a team of persons in the Scoring Room, which procedure would also eliminate any sort of malpractice. It is urged that
the petitioner is working as a Professor at Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha and he is the holder of D Judges Certificate in International Shooting.
According to the learned counsel, the belated complaint was filed to ensure that the nomination submitted by the petitioner to the National Rifle
Association is rejected.
The de facto complainant had entered appearance through counsel. He had filed a detailed counter affidavit as well. It is submitted that the
petitioner herein had awarded ineligible scores for shooters. It is submitted that when the Police was reluctant to register an FIR due to the
influence of the petitioner, he had to approach this Court and secure orders.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through the case diary as well.
It appears that there are disputes between two factions of the State Level Rifle Association. Allegation is that the petitioner had manipulated the
target card. After considering the submissions advanced, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that his
custodial interrogation in a case of this nature is quite unwarranted. I am inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
In the result, this petition is allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions.
i).The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is
proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum.
ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.
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 court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any,
and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.