Velayudhan P. vs Vs State Of Kerala

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

By order dated 2.6.2021 in the above captioned bail application, the petitioner herein was granted an order of pre-arrest bail by imposing certain

conditions.

The petitioner states that in tune with the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner appeared before the Station House Officer, Nedumbassery

Police Station on 10.6.2021 and he was thoroughly interrogated. The SHO then demanded that the petitioner should confess to the crime. When the

petitioner expressed his dismay, he was threatened and intimidated. He was again asked to appear on 10.6.2021 and later he was contacted over

phone and was asked to appear on 14.6.2021, on which day, a triple lockdown was declared by the Government. This was clearly in violation to the

directions issued, contends Miss. Rosin Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In order to substantiate her contentions, reference is

made to Annexures-A2 to A4. The petitioner states that when he appeared on 14.6.2021, he was abused and threatened with serious repercussions if

he did not confess to the crime. In the said circumstances, he preferred Annexure- A5 complaint before the Additional Director General of Police, and

later Annexure-A6 complaint before the District Police Chief, Aluva. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner is before this Court seeking

directions.

Sri. C.N.Prabhakaran, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no merit in the allegations raised. It is submitted that the petitioner had

appeared before the officer on 10.6.2021 and he was interrogated. However, he did not properly co-operate and he was asked to come again on

14.6.2021. It was felt that certain documents linking the accused with the crime were with the petitioner and he was directed to produce the same. It

is at that juncture that the petitioner has approached this Court with this application. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the allegations

levelled against the Station House Officer are not correct.

I have considered the submissions advanced. It was after detailed evaluation of the materials, the role assigned to the petitioner and the stage of

investigation, that pre-arrest bail was granted by order dated 2.6.2021. In terms of the order, the petitioner was to be interrogated on his appearance

and if he was proposed to be arrested, he ought to have been released on bail by executing bond as directed in the order. The investigating officer

could not have directed the petitioner to incriminate himself by producing materials against him as it would be clearly violative of Article 20(3) of the

Constitution of India. The sequence of events reveal that the conduct of the officer is clearly in breach of the order passed by this Court. If such

transgressions are repeated, appropriate actions will have to be taken against the officer concerned.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner be directed to appear on a specified day so that the directions can be complied with.

Having regards to the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the bar, I direct the petitioner to appear on 19.6.2021 at 10 a.m.

before the Station House Officer, Nedumbassery police station. The officer shall comply with the directions in the order dated 2.6.2021, release the

petitioner on bail by permitting him to execute the bond. Under no circumstances shall the petitioner be harassed or abused by the officer concerned.

A compliance report shall be filed by the learned Public Prosecutor before this Court immediately thereafter.

This application is disposed of.