Muhammed Shafeeque P.C vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 3rd accused in Crime No.577/2018 of Kunnamangalam Police Station, Kozhikode, where prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 395, 365 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the report of the Investigating Officer.

The prosecution case is that at about 14.00 hours on 05.09.2018, one Pushpavalli lodged a complaint before the S.H.O, Kunnamangalam Police Station stating that her son by name `Shiju @ Tinku' was missing. Accordingly, crime No.577/2018 was registered under Section 57 of KP Act, on the basis of the complaint. During the course of investigation, the above Shiju @ Tinku appeared before the Investigating Officer and stated that he went to Manglore in search of a job. Accordingly, he was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam and released. Therefore, FAD report also was filed.

However, it has been revealed subsequently, as per intelligence report, that Shiju @ Tinku was abducted on 04.09.2018 and thereafter he was wrongfully restrained and brutally manhandled with demand to hand over 1.5 kg. of gold which was taken over from the carrier. Accordingly, the investigation was re-opened and further investigation has been continuing. During further investigation, it has been revealed that the petitioner, who is part of the criminal gangs in Kozhikode, along with them abducted Shiju @ Tinku on the allegation that he had taken away 1.5 kg. of gold belonged to a friend of the accused. Later Shiju @ Tinku given statement that he was abducted by a gang of more than 10 persons and the petitioner was one among them. This is the base on which crime, incorporating the above offences, was also incorporated and investigation is going on.

While pursuing the relief of anticipatory bail, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and the allegations are false. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defacto complainant, who is the mother of Shiju @ Tinku, or Shiju @ Tinku never complained of any overt acts, as alleged by the prosecution and the prosecution suo motu started further investigation acting on the intelligence report. Therefore, the prosecution made out, herein is on the basis of wrong assumption of facts, and in such a case, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary at all. Therefore, he deserves anticipatory bail. The learned counsel affirmed co-operation of the petitioner to aid the investigation.

Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor strongly supported the prosecution case and submitted that Shiju @ Tinku was abducted, wrongfully restrained and brutally assaulted demanding 1.5 kg. of gold, alleged to be taken by the above said Shiju @ Tinku from a carrier which belonged to the friend of the accused. Therefore, scam behind this crime should be unearthed, for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be released on anticipatory bail, as the same would halter the investigation.

On perusal of the report, it is crystal clear that initially a man missing case was registered on 05.09.2018 and thereafter on 6.10.18 Shiju @ Tinku appeared before the Investigating Officer and thereafter report was filed before the Magistrate Court in this regard. Later on, as per the intelligence report, the abduction, wrongful constrainment and assault against Shiju @ Tinku were unearthed and further investigation has been continuing to find out the truth in this matter involving serious allegations. The crux of the prosecution case is that Shiju @ Tinku was abducted wrongfully and brutally assaulted demanding 1.5 kg. of gold alleged to have taken by Shiju @ Tinku, which belonged to the friend of the petitioner. In such a case, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner are absolutely necessary, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor. Hence, grant of anticipatory bail would be fatal to the investigation and, therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be released on anticipatory bail.

Hence the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.