High Court Kerala High Court

V.V.Augustine vs Superintendent Of Police on 18 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
V.V.Augustine vs Superintendent Of Police on 18 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3620 of 2007()


1. V.V.AUGUSTINE, RETIRED ASSISTANT
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :18/06/2007

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J.

                            ----------------------

                            B.A.No.3620  of 2007

                        ----------------------------------------

                 Dated this the  18th  day of June 2007




                                   O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner

apprehends that he may be arrested as an accused in the ill-

famous Abhaya murder case. The alleged incident had taken

place as early as on 27/3/1992. It is now concluded and reported

to the court that it was a case of murder. But unfortunately, in

spite of deployment of the C.B.I, the mystery of the crime

remains unresolved. The petitioner was the A.S.I, who prepared

the inquest report. He apprehends that the new investigation

team which has now taken over and which has questioned him

sufficiently by now, may arrest him leading to his unnecessary

incarceration. The petitioner submits that he is absolutely

innocent. He has only discharged his official duties. He has

been questioned by a number of investigating officers by now.

He has co-operated with the investigating officers to the

maximum extent. In these circumstances, he may be granted

anticipatory bail, it is prayed. After the discussions at the bar,

B.A.No.3620/07 2

the learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that the

submission of the learned Standing Counsel for C.B.I that the

petitioner is not arrayed as an accused even now, may be

recorded and this petition closed.

2. That can of course be done. But the learned Standing

Counsel for the CBI submits that the petitioner may not be

permitted to arm himself with any order of anticipatory bail. The

petitioner is shown to be responsible for some incorrect

statements in the inquest report. The signatures of some

persons are forged. He may have done these in an attempt to

save the real culprits, whose identity is not ascertained so far.

He has hence got to be interrogated thoroughly. I find merit in

that submission. It is the need of the system and the polity that

this crime, that had taken place about fifteen years back, must

be resolved satisfactorily. Every serious effort must be

undertaken to resolve the mystery in the interests of confidence

of the polity in the ability of the criminal investigative system to

ascertain the truth. The credibility of the C.B.I is also at stake.

They must put in every serious and active effort to resolve the

crime. I am not at all persuaded that it is necessary to permit

B.A.No.3620/07 3

anyone to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail which

would impede the truth discovery process. I am, in these

circumstances, satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled for

anticipatory bail. I accept the submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioner and record the submission of the learned

Standing Counsel for CBI that the petitioner has not so far been

made an accused; but his further interrogation/examination is

necessary. I have no reason to assume that the special

investigation team, which has taken over would abuse the right

which they have under the code to question the petitioner in the

attempt to discover and unearth the truth.

3. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

B.A.No.3620/07 4

B.A.No.3620/07 5

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF MAY2007