Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.311 of 2014 of the Chevayur Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1) of the PDPP Act. He apprehends arrest and has filed this application. 2. Learned State Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the petitioner is the Manager of the AUP School, Malaparamb which is an aided school. Building of the school was demolished using JCB during the night of 10.04.2014. Computer and other articles purchased with funds allotted by the local MLA and SSA and other articles of the school were damaged causing huge loss. It is submitted that interrogation of the petitioner is required to reveal his actual role in the alleged incident. It is submitted that the case was registered on the basis of a complaint preferred by the Headmistress of the school. It is further submitted that the local people on knowing about demolition of building of the school raised funds and constructed another building on the site.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are not true. It is submitted that as per Annexure-I, order dated 01.11.2013 it was ordered that 3 class rooms of the school building have to be demolished for development of the Wynad-Kozhikode highway. It is pointed out in the said order that the Government had directed deployment of the staff as the school was found to be uneconomical. Reference is also made to Annexure-II, order of the DEO, Kozhikode whereby the petitioner was directed to maintain the school building until general election, 2014 is over as the school was designated to be a polling station (027, Kozhikode North). It is submitted that the allegation that the petitioner is involved in the incident is not true. Even according to the prosecution, the 3rd accused is the master mind behind the incident.
4. In response, the learned State Public Prosecutor argued that even as per Annexure-II, the petitioner was bound to maintain the building until the entire process of election including counting of votes is over. But on the night of 10.04.2014, the school building was demolished.
5. I have perused the relevant records. The question whether the petitioner is actually involved in the incident in any manner has to be revealed by investigation. At the same time having regard to the relevant circumstances I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required particularly as some of the accused arrested in the case are released on bail. Hence I am inclined to grant relief.
There is allegation that property of the school purchased with funds of the local MLA and SSA were damaged. Though this is contradicted, I find from the complaint that the Headmistress has referred to destruction of computers, etc., kept in the school and which were (allegedly) purchased with funds of the local MLA and SSA. I need not now decide whether offence Sec.3(1) of the PDPP Act is involved or not. Prima facie there is reason to think so. In that situation the petitioner has to deposit some amount.
Application is disposed of as under:
(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the the Officer investigating Crime No.311 of 2014 of the Chevayur Police Station on 12.06.2014 at 10.00 a.m for interrogation.
(ii) If interrogation of the petitioner is not completed that day, he shall appear before the officer investigating the case on the day/days and time as directed by him which the petitioner shall comply.
(iii) In case the petitioner is arrested he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
(iv) On such production, the petitioner shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:
(a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner.
(b) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation.
(c) Petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail.
(d) Petitioner shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) in a Nationalized Bank in the name of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode initially for a period of two years (renewable as per order of the learned magistrate) and produce the Fixed Deposit Receipt before the learned magistrate within two weeks from the date of his release of bail so that in case the case is decided against the petitioner and he is made liable to pay compensation, such compensation to the extent possible could be realized from the amount in deposit.
(v) In case the petitioner violates any of conditions (b) to (d), it is open to the investigating Officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of bail as held in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv