Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 911 (KER)

Maneesh P. M. v. State of Kerala

2015-07-16

ALEXANDER THOMAS

body2015
ORDER : Alexander Thomas, J. The prayer in this Crl. MC is as follows: "... to direct the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 121/2015 of Aluva West Police Station to interrogate the petitioner on the date of his appearance and produce him on the same day before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva and to direct the learned Magistrate to consider the bail application positively on the same day itself in the light of dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arneshkumar v. State of Bihar and Another (Crl. Appeal No. 1277/2014) and not to remand the petitioner to Judicial custody." It is stated that the petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 121/2015 of Aluva West Police Station for alleging offences under Sections 408, 465, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code registered on the basis that private criminal complaint filed by the ate facto complainant before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is further pointed out that the allegation is that the accused by acting as the Manager of the petrol pump owned by the de facto complainant by using forged documents had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 7.37 lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Thirty Seven Thousand only) from 01/03/2014 to 17/11/2014 and that the de facto complainant is the business partner of the petitioner and that the alleged incident is the outcome of the business dispute relating to the running of a petrol pump between these partners. That the attempt of the de facto complainant is to harass the petitioner and to settle the financial dispute under the guidance of these impugned criminal proceedings. Further that the inordinate delay in filing the private complaint alone is sufficient to hold that the allegations are baseless and solely intended to harass the petitioner. Further pointed in the celebrated case Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court has held that in cases where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than 7 years, whether with or without fine, it should be ensured that the Police Officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and that the Magistrates do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In the light of these aspects the petitioner has made the aforestated prayer in the instant criminal miscellaneous case. 2. Heard. Sri. In the light of these aspects the petitioner has made the aforestated prayer in the instant criminal miscellaneous case. 2. Heard. Sri. Mansoor B. H., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Kerala. 3. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that it is for the petitioner to appear for the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 121/2015 of Aluva West Police Station, Ernakulam District and make available for interrogation by the said Officer Investigating the crime without any further delay. The petitioner may appear before the Investigating Officer concerned, at 10.00 A.M. on 06/08/2015 and the Investigating Officer shall question the petitioner. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the interrogation and make available all necessary documents that may be relevant for the present purpose to the perusal of the Investigating Officer. If the interrogation process is not completed on that day, the Investigating Officer will be at liberty to direct the petitioner to appear on the next day or any day immediately thereafter and the petitioner shall co-operate with such further interrogation. After this interrogation process is over, the petitioner should be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and then given necessary opportunity to ensure that he is represented through counsel before the learned Magistrate and petitioner should also give opportunity to move necessary application for grant of bail before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate thereupon will consider the said bail application on the day itself and after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Investigating Officer concerned, shall pass appropriate orders thereon in light of legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar. The petitioner's counsel will be at liberty to make available a copy of that reported ruling of the Apex Court or any other appropriate ruling before the learned Magistrate along with the bail application. With these observations and directions, the Crl. MC, stands finally disposed of.