LexMURALEEDHARAN versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MURALEEDHARAN A v. STATE OF KERALA APRIL 18, 2001 [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] · B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 438. Anticipatory Bail-Grant of-Liquor tragedy resulted in large-scale deaths of persons-Accused was considered one of the kingpins in a series C of grave crimes-Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the accused on the ground that no material could be collected by the investigating agency to connect the accused with the crime except the confessional statement of the co-accused-But the High Court reversed the order of Sessions Judge- Correctness of-Held: No Court can afford to presume that the investigating D agency would fail to trace out more materials to prove the accusation against an accused-Custodial interrogation of an accused is indispensably necessary--Hence, High Court rightly reversed the order of the Sessions Judge-Kera/a Abkari Act, S.8. The appellant was considered to be one of the kingpins in a series of E grave crimes including the offence under Section 8 of the Kerala Abkari Act. A number of criminal cases were registered as a sequel to the large- scale deaths of persons in what is known as the liquor tragedy. The appellant was granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Sessions Judge on the ground that no material could be collected by the investigating agency to connect the a11pellant with the F crime except the confessional statement of the co-accused. But the High Com1 reversed the order of the Sessions Judge. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. Custodial interrogation of an accused is indispensably G necessary for the investigating agency to unearth all the links involved in the criminal conspiracies 'committed by the persons. Union of India v. Ram Samujh, [1999) 9 SCC 429, relied on. 1.2. The supercilious manner in which the Sessions Judge decided to H 57 58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R. A think that "no material could be collected by the investigating agency to connect the a1>pellant with the crime except the confessional statement of the co-accused" desenres reprobation. Such a wayward thinking emanating from '" a Sessions Judge deserves judicial condemnation. No court can afford fo ... presume that the investigating agency would fail to trace out more materials B to prove the accusation against an accused. One fails to understand what would have prompted the Sessions Judge to conclude, at this early stage, that the investigating agency would not be able to collect any matelial to connect the appellant with the clime. The order of the Sessions Judge blessing the appellant with a pre-arrest bail order would have remained as a bugbear of how the discretion on the Sessions Judge under Section 438 of the Code of c Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been misused. It is heartening that the High Court did not allow ~uch an order to remain in force for long. By the impugned order passed by the High Court an unwholesome benefit wrangled by the appellant was lightly reversed. [60-D-F] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimitlal Appeal Nos. D 507-510 of 2001. From the Judgment and.Order dated 8.3.2001 of the Kerala High Court in Crl. M.C. Nos. 1187, 1188, 1235 and 1236of2001. ~ U.R. Lalit, E.M.S. Anam and Fazlin Anani for the Appellant. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . THOMAS, J. Leave granted. The appellant who was described by the investigating agency as one F of the kingpins in a series of grave crimes including the offence under Section 8 of the Kerala Abkari Act (For short "the Act") found it easy to secure orders of anticipatory bail in all those cases from the Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. But the High Court ofKerala, within a month, reversed those orders of the Sessions Judge as per an order passed by a learned Single E- G Judge which is sought to be impugned in this Court. These appeals by special leave are intended for that purpose. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant we did not think the necessity to hear the arguments of the counsel for the respondent State of Kerala. Hence we proceed to dispose of these appeals on the strength of the arguments of the appellant. ,I H A number of criminal cases were registered sequel to the large scale MURALEEDHARAN v. STATE OF KERALA [THOMAS, J.] 59 deaths of persons in what is now known as the liquor tragedy in Kollam A District (Kerala). A l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.